CountryPlans Forum

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

QuotePELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats' Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.  The JCT letter  makes clear that Americans who do not maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

So what is the problem here?  If both houses of Congress pass a tax, and the President signs it, do you think people who break the law should not go to prison?  

If you want to debate the merits of compulsory insurance or socialized medicine, those are legitimate topics for debate.  But if you are saying we should not prosecute and imprison those who break the law, I think you have bigger problems with the way this country works than the possibility of socialized medicine.

For the record, I am in favor of tyranny by the majority.  It may not be the best system, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place.

You have got to be kidding - right?

Most people can barely pay their rent let alone $15000 for some screwed up government insurance.  I see the elite have just found another way to rip off the taxpayers - and then imprison them for not having a good job because they have allowed corporate America to take the good jobs overseas - where again, only the Elite will have the money.

The majority does not or likely soon will not have that kind of money.

These guys might welcome 5 years in prison as it is better than what they can afford now.

(https://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy62/the_troglodyte/homeless.jpg)

Glenn, you took the far end comments from a far end paper and are running with it...
I like ya anyway  ;)

As a self employed worker I pay my own way. Our premiums have been going up. We carry a high deductable and minimal insurance, basically hospitalization/surgery coverage. We pay out of pocket for doctors visits and meds. In a good year this coverage runs about 12% of gross income, this year it's looking like it will be 40-50% of gross due to the economy. We also used it this year so the deductable, doctors visits and meds dip into that remaining pie. and yeah, they just jacked the rate. The only way it works is I was not the one in the hospital, if that happens in the downturn we will likely sink. I would feel very badly for the poor SOB they send out to try to evict me. I doubt I'm alone in this situation. This has trouble written all over it.

I would border on the affordability credits so doubt I would get discounted coverage, I think our out of pocket expenses this year would have just hit the cap (they have folks that figure this stuff out and it looks to me like they have done their homework, "allow them one nostril above water").  I'll carry insurance one way or the other if I possibly can. I'll look at what they offer and compare it to the coverage I have now. If they offer more coverage for the same price or better coverage for a lower price, of course I will take it, other wise I'll stick with what I've got. More than a few people I work around are uninsured. From my understanding of it roughly 10% of my premium covers them and is a good bit of the reason my premiums have been rising. Those that are riding on my insurance now should have to pay their own way, I already have rationed care due to them and they effectively are getting socialized medicine. I don't think freeloaders should get a relaxed vacation, we need gravel on our road. If everyone ends up on the government plan then we might as well socialize it, if not then I'm fine with keeping private insurance available. If we all end up in jail, well, they'll go bankrupt soon enough. I'm not entirely sure that hasn't already happened, but that, is another topic.

Thanks, Don.  I need a true friend. :)

Even if the Repubs (I am anti-authoritarian- neither party) brought up the worst case here it is supported by the paperwork.

Sassy and I also carry insurance as I am self-employed but I know lots and lots of people who could never afford this and the economy will likely get worse before it gets better ... unless you are a politician - either flavor - and have investments in the insurance business and have the ability to make mandatory laws to support your investments..

Breaking News:

The House passes health care bill in bipartisan vote, 200-215. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/)

This is very good news.  Now the Senate needs to man-up and do the same. 

I'm having trouble finding the part in the Constitution where it says Congress can force me to buy health insurance or throw me in jail. Do you know why we are a Republic and not a Democracy? Because the founders thought that Democracy (Tyranny of the Majority) was the worst form of government.

Now is the time to spread the word about Jury Nulifaction people. Don't carry it if you don't want it and when they throw you on trial, hope that the people there find you innocent for breaking an unjust and unconstitutional law.

A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him. Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!

Important passages in the 2,000 page legislation - WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html)

Quote from: RainDog on November 08, 2009, 07:42:22 AM
Important passages in the 2,000 page legislation - WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html)

That's not a factual WSJ article.  That's an opinion piece by a partisan contributor.  Her conclusions are way out in right field.  Scare the sheeple is the Republican strategy.  That's all they have left.

This is going to happen.  The people want it to happen.  We will no longer be dominated by those in the pocket of the insurance companies and big pharma.  Tyranny by the minority is the worst form of government.  Democracy works!

I thought Bi-partisan meant both voted for it.

"The gargantuan Democratic measure passed 220 to 215, with a single Republican vote, capping a contentious daylong debate that underscored the ideological divide separating the two parties over healthcare."

Doesn't look like much "Bi" there.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-healthcare-house8-2009nov08%2C0%2C1723384.story

Quote from: RainDog on November 08, 2009, 07:18:30 AM
A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him. Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!

I like that. :)

I hope the state of Texas offers National Health Care nullification on its ballot next year.

I hope all the red states nullify it.  Then the conservatives can explain to their constituents why they can't pay less for their health insurance, or be protected from discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions, or not be denied coverage only after they become sick.

That sort of nullification legislation has a name; the Throw Out the Republicans Act.

Everybody remember the liberal woman, who right after Obama was elected exclaimed "I am so happy now, I can't believe it... I'll never have to worry about putting gas in my car again!!!"

I wonder how much free gas she's gotten in the last year?

This health care mess is similar to that.  Lots of folks jumping up and down thinking Santa just came.

Show me the free gas.

Quote from: NM_Shooter on November 08, 2009, 01:01:43 PM
Everybody remember the liberal woman, who right after Obama was elected exclaimed "I am so happy now, I can't believe it... I'll never have to worry about putting gas in my car again!!!"

I wonder how much free gas she's gotten in the last year?

This health care mess is similar to that.  Lots of folks jumping up and down thinking Santa just came.

Show me the free gas.

No gas costs, no mortgage, and now "free" healthcare. It's like... like HEAVEN.

Catch y'all later. I'm headed out to gaze at the unicorns.

'Course, if they DO throw me in jail, it saves me having to build a house, or buy food, or go to work, or anything. This plan just may have some merit after all.

Unicorns?  Obama brought the world unicorns?

Yaayyyyy!!!

(I wonder if they taste "half" as good as Ibex? ::) )

One of the ladies said Obama was going to pay all of her bills - mortgage and all as I recall.  May have had a thing going on the side we were not privy to. [waiting]

Just remember - there is no free lunch.  To give it to you they have to take twice as much from you.  Telling you it is $15000 up front?  Look for it to cost you $30000 at least and be screwed up royal at that. 

Check the track record.

(https://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy62/the_troglodyte/broke.jpg)

Well first of all the $15k is just for the policy. you'll be out another $5300 in co-pays the way I read it so now it's $20,300 already and that's before you add in the government waste factor. If you look at how this thing is set up it's going to hurt the middle class to the tune of 20% of their income. The poor will get free or nearly free care and the rich won't care about the $20k so basicly the middle class will fund most of the healthcare for the poor. Maybe a good time to be poor. The bottom line is this is just a tax increase in disguise. Next will come rationing and long waits for stuff like MRI's. Unless you're rich or connected that is. I'm sure they'll have seperate services for those folks without the waits and rationing.

Medicare took good care of my in laws, SS is still running (self employed, I pay both halves), my bills still seem to come through the mail just fine, cash for clunkers was extended due to its popularity.

Your friends who cannot afford insurance under this plan will be offered insurance at an adjusted rate if their income is less than 4x the poverty level. The plan they are proposing looks like it will cost me about the same as what I have now, deductable is similar and will increase benefits, it also can't kick us out. That's a big plus in my world. I'm still waiting to see what they really offer, its all smoke and mirrors right now.

As far as I'm concerned if a person chooses not to be covered that is fine, simply don't expect medical care unless you can show an ability to pay. We as a society have decided that option is unpalatable and force the doctor to provide care and seek compensation later. We can fix it at either end, the death panel sits in the admissions office in a truly free system. I am paying for the poor now, am already rationed, so nothing new there, that's probably why the cost seems very similar to me.

VA Gent's proposal probably wouldn't work, from my experience that juror would be dismissed in the selection process, if it ever went to a jury trial, which I kinda doubt. A young single person can go uninsured without much consequence, their illness or death only affects them. Indeed life is their strawberry, to be plucked and savored if they wish. As people take on more responsibility as they mature some begin to realize that their illness or death means both tigers get a full meal and there is just the one strawberry. With a few more decades under my belt, my spouse's life if I am sick or dead causes me more concern than water skiing in a waterfall ever did. I don't mind carrying insurance, what I'm tired of is carrying an ever increasing number of freeloaders. This seems to be an attempt to limit that.

If you see another way I'm open to other ideas. I can use my incredible influence around the jobsite to forward your plan   :)

Quote from: Don_P on November 08, 2009, 06:22:27 PM
I am paying for the poor now, am already rationed, so nothing new there, that's probably why the cost seems very similar to me.

A young single person can go uninsured without much consequence, their illness or death only affects them. Indeed life is their strawberry, to be plucked and savored if they wish.

Well, Don,  the House has voted to use gov't coercion to pluck that youthful strawberry by making all those carefree young people pay for the infirmities of their elders and betters whether they like it or not. By forcing people who really don't need insurance to buy it anyway, premiums should come down alright, because those who really don't need it likely won't use it much.So their premiums would be more accurately characterized as "contributions" if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that mandatory charity is nothing more than legalized robbery.

You're right, it's all smoke and mirrors.......and lies and deceit. And it always will be. All we can hope is that the young and healthy will get $15,000 per year's worth of warm and fuzzy feelings, to kind of balance out the rage and frustration they'll feel because the gov't has seen fit to set their priorities and spend their money for them.

Yeah, but we also get brand new titles!

Comrade!

That is one way of looking at it Harry. I can think of examples right off the bat though. An uninsured young nephew got cancer. I took an uninsured coworker to the ER, and then to another ER. I decided right then I wanted better care than writhing in the back of a pickup. A buddy ran his finger into my tablesaw, I wasn't home my wife took him in, no insurance. I had a hernia, my boss wrote it up as an accident. Was it job related, I have no idea. That is only an issue because we don't have generalized coverage.

I guess the point is, no the young are not medically cheap, their deaths simply do not financially affect others as severely. I am probably now running as cheap as this body has ever run. So no, I don't agree with your assertion. At middle age and middle class I'm the one getting dumped on and it isn't looking any worse than the usual, just another potential choice.

I notice you all are quoting $15K for everyone, the smoke and mirrors are coming from both sides.

I pay for schools, and buses, and teachers. I have no kids, should I experience rage and frustration? They're building a brand new secure prison in town, I probably won't even get to see it, should I feel robbed? Have I gotten out of insurance or the government what I've paid in? No. Should I be angry about that?

What we have isn't working, do you have a plan?

How about a voluntary way to finance the medical needs of those truly in danger of being bankrupted by health problems? There are lots of people, foundations, and corporations in this country who donate billions every year for an enormous number of different things. They often receive a tax incentive for those donations. Why not craft such an incentive specifically for this problem, and see if we can get the real, severe needs met without this gov't intrusion and coercion?

What about taking a hard look at the FDA's rules on drugs and the trials that make them so slow to come to market and expensive, not to mention establishing such a high cost of entry to market as to create a functional monopoly for the big players currently in place?

How about some kind of malpractice reform to bring the overhead down for medical professionals?

At middle age and middle class I'm the one getting dumped on and it isn't looking any worse than the usual, just another potential choice.

It would be just another potential choice if it was voluntary without penalty for choosing to opt out. But it's not. It's outrageously worse than usual. It's a massive loss of choice, not an additional choice. It's a huge sacrifice of liberty and the most intimate kind of self-determination for the promise of medical security, and "promise" is the operative word.

I pay for schools, and buses, and teachers. I have no kids, should I experience rage and frustration? They're building a brand new secure prison in town, I probably won't even get to see it, should I feel robbed? Have I gotten out of insurance or the government what I've paid in? No. Should I be angry about that?

I'm in the same boat regarding schools, etc. I've always felt that since I received an education in public schools, it's only fair that I contribute back for the ones coming up. I only feel rage and frustration when I learn the schools are being used for indoctrination as opposed to education, and I think it's a breach of civic duty to fail to feel outrage when our institutions are misused and perverted.

As for prisons, are we locking up a larger proportion of the population than we should, and if so, why? How could we avoid having predators roaming our neighborhoods while minimizing the size of the incarcerated population?

Insurance is voluntary so far; if everybody got out what they put in, it couldn't exist. According to your posts, you feel the money is well spent in exchange for the risk assumed by the insurance company. That's fine with me, but I reserve the right to follow a different path. I reject the idea that the gov't has been delegated the right to require me to assign my health risks. As long as insurance remains voluntary, neither one of us should be angry.

As far as gov't is concerned, thank God we're not getting all the gov't we're paying for!

Harry, I agree with your last post 99%

An issue I take is that if we set up funding to help those who are about to bankrupted by health problems, who decides how much money goes to them?  How much money does a 65 year old overweight diabetic smoker get vs. a 30 year old who has a young family and cancer?  There is not enough money in the world to cover all the needs, and I would not want to wrestle with the morality of distribution. 

One of the things we need to ask (and it seems no one has not)... is why is healthcare so expensive?

Here's an example.  My neighbor went to the ER, as he was suspicious that he had developed DVT in one of his legs.  His three hour ER stay, which included one ultrasound scan from a tech, ended up costing a total of $4500.

I don't know what other folk's experience has been with ER, but it seems to me that I am there for 4 to 8 hours, and I get maybe 20 minutes of actual attention the whole time.  Why in the world would this cost so much for that test?

Could it be that those of us with wallets and coverage are already being billed for those who don't have coverage?  This new health care plan is an extension of that problem.  Now we will be getting taxed to pay for it as well..

We're not all going to have an extra $15k of burden added to us.  Some will be more, some less.  But I bet it's not far off in the long run.

What this will do is devastate benefits to those of us who receive insurance through our employers.  They are going to drop coverage like a hot potato, and we all will now be forced to pay for something that was part of our benefits plan.

At $1000 to $1500 per family for a typical plan today, $15k is probably not far off.  However, remember that those of us with income will be paying those costs for those who have no income.  Add to that the Hispanic caucus wants to include illegal aliens.

I think that if we want to improve health care, the government should get involved on the supply side of care, not the supply side of insurance.  Let's build gov't clinics and treatment centers to increase the supply (leave the private stuff alone, as I don't want anything to do with a hospital that is run like the VA).  Let's do a better job on educating our kids to make healthy life decisions to decrease the demand.   

The idea of using a flat tax to pay for a person's healthcare is complete socialism and should be discarded. 

We have ways to fix this that don't involve a complete rip up and reroute of the insurance industry, and a handoff of responsibility to a government that HAS PROVEN it can't run a social program in a successful fashion.

God Bless Lieberman!

For a democrat, I like him!

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091109/US.Health.Care.Overhaul/

***k Lieberman

Foreign policy hawk, at least.

Bucked his party completely on that issue, and lost him the democratic nomination for senate in Connecticut. Had to run as an independent.

The far left hates him as much as anyone.

Shooter, I agree 100% about the cost of healthcare being grossly too high. It's incredible to me that an ambulance ride, even a short one, is always $1000 or more, before you even get to the ER!

I don't know what all the factors are that push these prices to these levels. I saw a TV news show a few years ago that investigated a company hired by hospitals to examine their billing and find ways to charge more, resulting in the $10 aspirin, and much worse. They, in turn, were paid out of the increase between the original billing and what was collected after the "upcharges" were in place. I haven't taken the trouble to try to learn how profitable hospitals are in general. I know the local hospital has come very near to closing its doors a number of times, notably only a year or two ago. It's a rural hospital, and one of the problems was getting stiffed for ER services. They have a financial counselor, will take payments, negotiate for cash, etc, but some people just figure it should be free, and being uncollectible, stiff them and go merrily down the road. Then there's the issue of if their affliction really required ER treatment in the first place. I really don't know how to balance the need to provide for bona fide emergency services with the need to avoid abuse and misuse of the ER, but if abuse could be minimized it would have to help keep costs down.

An issue I take is that if we set up funding to help those who are about to bankrupted by health problems, who decides how much money goes to them?  How much money does a 65 year old overweight diabetic smoker get vs. a 30 year old who has a young family and cancer?  There is not enough money in the world to cover all the needs, and I would not want to wrestle with the morality of distribution.

My thought was that foundations and non-profits would be the conduit for funds that would pay medical expenses for those in truly dire financial straits. The funds would flow to the distributing NP or foundation from those with large tax liability in exchange for a tax credit or deduction, or from donations like the ones we make to the United Way, etc. Americans give huge amounts to help others in foreign countries every year in this way, why not help our own in a similar way?

Guidelines would have to be developed by the NPs and foundations to assess the medical aspects and the financial aspects of the applicant's case. Funds would be distributed through a grant process based on the guidelines, and the people on the grant approval committee would have to make the tough decisions, just like the insurance people do now, and the gov't bureaucrats would if the healthcare bill is enacted.

Would it be a perfect system? Absolutely not. Perfection in the affairs of men is not an option. But at least it would be voluntarily funded and operated, and would not be another example of gov't intrusion into our lives and business through taxation, regulation, and sponsored litigation. Force is the single thing the gov't brings to the table in any situation. Not wisdom, not efficiency, just pure, unvarnished force. To be applied to us. Why would we invite that?

[rofl2]

No one ever pays attention to the detail.  Both sides put out press releases with little clauses like [and] and [or] and people pass right over them.  The fine and imprisonment is for those who don't buy insurance AND don't pay their taxes in the bill.  The tax issue is big because it effects most of the people I work with and our clients.  It only kicks in for people making over $250,000 (individual) and $500,000(couple) and that is a 1% tax.  The tax is only on income over that dollar amount so the first $500,000 for a couple is tax free. So if a couple makes $750,000 of income they would pay 1% tax on $250,000 or $2,500 or .0033%. Most of the people I speak to are worried because anyone that makes over $500,000 (individual) or $1,000,000 (couple) has to pay 5% tax on income over that amount.  As stated in the opening quote the average person paying the tax that refused to pay that could be sent to prison would have a yearly income of over $2,000,000.  Sorry, I don't shed many tears for millionaires that choose to evade taxes.  

So in summary the 5 years imprisonment and $250,000 fines are not for people who don't buy the insurance, it is for millionaires who don't buy the insurance and refuse to pay the taxes.

[rofl2] (me shedding tears)

I believe one of the main reasons for high medical costs is from lawyers and their outrageous lawsuits. My wife works in a medical lab, and her malpractice insurance is about double what her salary is! And lab work is not very high-risk. A routine colonoscopy takes 20 minutes, and cost $4000. Much of that is for the anesthegeologist, a very high-risk job. I personally know people in the medical field, and they make good, but not ridiculous money, so the money is going somewhere else. And insurance companies are very slow to pay- my doctor said 8 months, in some cases.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin, like the RI hospital that operated 5 TIMES on the WRONG part of a single patient!

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that malpractice awards and defensive medicine  (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/) account for one half of one percent (.5%) of medical spending in this country.  So tort reform is not going to make a big difference the prices you pay for medical care.

Quote from: Squirl on November 09, 2009, 02:03:19 PM
[rofl2]

No one ever pays attention to the detail....

Thanks  (https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q75/djmillerbucket/Emoticons/ththumbs_up.gif)

That's not quite correct.

Dry your eyes and read page 297 of the bill. 

According to your posts, you feel the money is well spent in exchange for the risk assumed by the insurance company. That's fine with me, but I reserve the right to follow a different path.
I'm having a hard time finding where I've said anything resembling that. I am tired of carrying deadbeats and freeloaders who compromise my care and dig ever deeper into my wallet.

My thought was that foundations and non-profits would be the conduit for funds that would pay medical expenses for those in truly dire financial straits. The funds would flow to the distributing NP or foundation from those with large tax liability in exchange for a tax credit or deduction, or from donations like the ones we make to the United Way, etc. Americans give huge amounts to help others in foreign countries every year in this way, why not help our own in a similar way?

So here's the other path...waiting for a sugar daddy.
This actually can work, with one change. There is no care until you show an ability to pay. That way you are not financially stressed, the doctor or hospital are not endangered by being stiffed for services rendered and my insurance is not diminished or overpriced by having to carry lillies of the field.

   Am I missing something . . . I thought the insurance would be 2.5% of income.  About $1250 for an individual that earns $50000.


/

I've stayed out of this, because the arguments at home are usually pretty heated, but...

1.  Why not detach healthcare from employment/employers?  Buy your insurance much as you do auto insurance.  Plenty of competition there, and fairly good service.  Many states have mandated auto insurance, and it seems to work.

2.  There are those who use the medical system as candy...they go for every little thing.  MD, how much do you think they would have charged you to do what you did when the debris hit you in the face?  Instead , you took care of it.  Others would be hitting the ER for that.

3.  Here in Minnesota, we already pay a 2.5% tax on all things medical to pay for insurance for the poor.  It never seems to be enough.  It is real easy to use something when you get it for free.  When it is your dime, you think a bit more carefully.

4.  IMHO, mandated insurance without reform is unconstitutional.  We are being forced to buy a "product" that we have no control over.  Give me a choice on deductibles/amounts and coverage and I would be happy to see it mandated.  But not the way it is now.  We're slowly approaching the company store syndrome.  Health insurance and taxes are eating up so much of our income, that we are no longer working for ourselves.  And that is a dangerous thing.

Enough ranting.

Quote from: bayviewps on November 10, 2009, 08:00:22 AM


   Am I missing something . . . I thought the insurance would be 2.5% of income.  About $1250 for an individual that earns $50000.


/

Yup!  Page 297.  ANDs and ORs included.

page 297

1 ''SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
2 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
3 ''(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
4 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
5 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
6 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
7 ''(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross in8
come for the taxable year, over
9 ''(2) the amount of gross income specified in
10 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
11 ''(b) LIMITATIONS.—
12 ''(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—
13 ''(A) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed
14 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax15
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
16 applicable national average premium for such
17 taxable year.
18 ''(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE
19 PREMIUM.—
20 ''(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of
21 subparagraph (A), the 'applicable national
22 average premium' means, with respect to
23 any taxable year, the average premium (as
24 determined by the Secretary, in coordina25
tion with the Health Choices Commis26
sioner) for self-only coverage under a basic

 Wait, wait. My understanding is that the 2.5% tax has nothing to do whatsoever with income level, that it's for non-compliance.

Wouldn't buy you insurance, you'd still be uninsured.

The taxes that Squirl is referring to are not the 2.5% penalty.

Cut and paste job here:

The bill includes tax surcharges on Americans in the top 1.2 percent of income. It proposes a 5.4 percent surtax on couples earning more than $1 million, a 1.5 percent surtax on couples with income between $500,000 and $1 million, and a 1 percent surtax on joint incomes over $350,000 or individual income over $280,000.

The 2.5 thing is completely separate:

Required participation by individuals, with a penalty of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income for non-compliance.

What I take away from that is that anyone who doesn't show proof of insurance pays 2.5% penalty, and the rich pay additional taxes.

And yeah, you go to jail if you don't pay your taxes, of course.

I like whole foods does it here in Texas. I believe the plan goes like this. Each employee gets a medical savings account of 5,000.00 per year to draw on. So now they have the power of cash to buy services (You can negotiate with a doctors office, they rather you pay cash up front and some doctors only take cash so they have a very reduced fee) If you do not spend your 5,000 that year I believe it gets rolled into your retirement account. Now after the 5,000 they offer their employee a catastrophic plan that kicks in at the 10,000 mark and pays I think 100%.

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 07, 2009, 05:05:37 PM
So what is the problem here?  If both houses of Congress pass a tax, and the President signs it, do you think people who break the law should not go to prison?  

If you want to debate the merits of compulsory insurance or socialized medicine, those are legitimate topics for debate.  But if you are saying we should not prosecute and imprison those who break the law, I think you have bigger problems with the way this country works than the possibility of socialized medicine.

For the record, I am in favor of tyranny by the majority.  It may not be the best system, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place.

As a riposte, I offer this man:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/Svh0bMlqXDI/AAAAAAAAFEw/GGD_QJEZk9Q/s200/grandpa.jpg)

Hie thee hence and READ (http://dumbolddad.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-mouth-insert.html).

So if you do not buy health insurance, instead of a penalty or fine, you pay a 2.5% income tax on your "net" income (gross excess of section 6012(a)(1)).  So if you are single and make $50,000 your net taxable income is usually around $40,000 after standard deductions and you would pay an additional $1000 of income taxes only if you fail to purchase health insurance and are not covered through work.  If fail to have health insurance and you evade your income tax responsibility you can be fined or imprisoned.  The limit of the additional taxes is national average premium of health care for an individual or around $1500 for someone in thier 20's or $3000 for someone in there fifties.  That does not include the pages of exemptions including a religious exemption.  

I was very worried about the "mandate" to have health insurance.  I thought it would impose a standard penalty if you didn't have it. Say a fine of $1000 or prison regardless of income . To me that would be a straight tax being alive.  Instead, this establishes a progressive income tax instead if you choose not to have coverage.   So instead of taxing life through a standard penalty, they are taxing income. Also unlike most taxes, there is a religious exemption built into this.


*** This does not constitute tax or legal advice.  Any discussion here is does not establish an attorney-client relationship.  No discussion here should be used to evade income tax responsibilities.

Quote from: StinkerBell on November 10, 2009, 10:07:12 AM
I like whole foods does it here in Texas. I believe the plan goes like this. Each employee gets a medical savings account of 5,000.00 per year to draw on.

They get $1800 a year in the account. Un-used $$ roll into next years health account and add up. I'm not sure what happens if the employee leaves or retires. The employee has an annual $2500 deductible before any plan benefits kick in.



Just as an aside there are a lot of Whole Foods customers who are upset with Whole Foods CEO Mackey for his opinions on health care. Many say they now shop the competition.  ???

Right, so a progressive tax of 2.5% for non-compliance, and the rich get soaked too, regardless.

I am sure I was told 5K.....Hmmmm. This plan was explained as I stated. Hmmm maybe it was an expansion of the Whole Foods model.  Well, I thought it was a good plan with the understanding I had.

Mu info may be a year or so old. ???  Maybe it was increased, or it could depend on length of employment? The fact that the amount left over is retained by the employee is good, otherwise people will find ways to spend it on things they don't need.

I gotta admit I do think that model is a good one.

Quote from: Phssthpok on November 10, 2009, 10:07:20 AM

As a riposte, I offer this man:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/Svh0bMlqXDI/AAAAAAAAFEw/GGD_QJEZk9Q/s200/grandpa.jpg)

Hie thee hence and READ (http://dumbolddad.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-mouth-insert.html).

That was a very, very powerful bit of writing.  I can't believe that we are so willing to accept this death-by-a-thousand cuts of our freedom. 

Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.
Source: www.youtube.com
Congressman Rogers' makes his opening statement on Health Care reform legislation that is under debate in Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Quote from: NM_Shooter on November 10, 2009, 12:45:49 PM

Quote from: Phssthpok on November 10, 2009, 10:07:20 AM

As a riposte, I offer this man:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/Svh0bMlqXDI/AAAAAAAAFEw/GGD_QJEZk9Q/s200/grandpa.jpg)

Hie thee hence and READ (http://dumbolddad.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-mouth-insert.html).

That was a very, very powerful bit of writing.  I can't believe that we are so willing to accept this death-by-a-thousand cuts of our freedom. 

One man's freedom is another man's tyranny.

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 11, 2009, 02:34:43 AM



One man's freedom is another man's tyranny.

Sure. There's freedom of choice, and there's freedom from choice, for instance.

Quote from: RainDog on November 11, 2009, 08:27:22 AM

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 11, 2009, 02:34:43 AM



One man's freedom is another man's tyranny.

Sure. There's freedom of choice, and there's freedom from choice, for instance.

And it looks like there's soon to be freedom from force >:(

I do not trust the Fed's. Look at an Indian Reservation and just see how the Fed's treat people and honor their word.

I don't trust corporations for the same reasons.

I agree with P.E.

We have had several experiences with an assortment of insurance companies over the past decade. One, and only one, was very good. That was our home owner insurance company. The others have been crazy frustrating experiences; one with a property insurance company, and another two bad experiences with health insurance companies. They were our greatest friends, or made out like they were, until they had to pay out a large amount or in one case until we had to apply for individual coverage after leaving the benefit umbrella of a mega corporation.

For those Sheeple who believe that "Big Pharma" or "Big Insurance" is the problem, ponder this: Ask the head of your small, medium or large sized company that you work for (or yourself, if self-employed) what the company's profit margin is. No tricks here. Last year, the average health insurance company posted less than a 3% profit, so where exactly is the gouging going on? Liberals only operate through fear - we had a Wall Street "crisis" so we spent trillions, how did that work out? We had a vehicle buying "crisis", hence Cash for Clunkers, which cost taxpayers $24,000 per car. How did that work out? Now we have a health care "crisis" although 92% of AMERICANS have health care coverage. This "crisis" is not about health care, because any American can get health care. It's about health insurance, something that is not a "crisis." The only "crisis" here is that we are trying to prove a negative. The negative component is a total relinquishment of your freedom, traded for health insurance. It is not worth it.

Wall Street Journal Article

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
OPINION / NOVEMBER 7, 2009
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a
Visit us at www.defendyourhealthcare.us
$20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
Visit us at www.defendyourhealthcare.us
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
Visit us at www.defendyourhealthcare.us
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.



Excuse the lengthy post, but we should all know exactly what is in this ridiculous 2000 page bill.

QuoteWall Street Journal Article

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
OPINION / NOVEMBER 7, 2009
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY 

First off, that was not an article from the Wall Street Journal.  It was an opinion piece by the former Republican lieutenant governor of New York.  Opinion pieces have no obligation to present an accurate representation of the topic; indeed, they always express only one side of the debate with no journalistic obligation to truth or verifiability.  It is up to the reader to decide if the person expressing their opinion is worthy of respect.

Secondly, Betsey McCauhey is the whack-a-loon who was spreading the "death panel" nonsense  (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?_r=1) long before Sarah Palin saw that it scared the tea baggers and put in in her stump speech.

Nearly everything she has cited in that screed is a distortion at best, and an out-and-out lie at the worst.  McCaughey can peddle her crazy somewhere else, cause we ain't buyin' it.

Pox Eclipse,

You assert that the article contains either distortions or out and out lies. The author cited specific pages and passages from the bill. Please let me know which passages and/or page numbers are incorrect for I wish to understand this 2000 page gargantuan.  Your response is the exact type of response that we often see from the left. First, engage in ad hominem attacks of anyone you disagree with. Next, engage in juvenile name calling (whack a loon?). These tactics may work for the adherents of the ah.. estimable Keith Olbermann show, but clear minded folks don't buy into them. Until you are willing to address Dr. Mccaughey's points and admit that this "health care crisis" is anything but, you are doomed to the dust heap of illogical thought that passes for "Progressive/Liberal" discourse.

"qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services"

Incorrect.  Almost any health care plan in place at the time of signing is considered grandfathered in under the grandfather clause.  So it the plans are "qualified" and not designed by the secretary.

"provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it."

Incorrect.  SEC. 224. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.  It is 18 months to adopt a process for recommendations and in the entire 3 page section there is not a single mention of costs or payments.  Completely false. 

I could keep going, but I am not going to make the effort.  If they start out at best misleading with some completely false statements, they lose credibility to me.  Some politicians are good at inciting anger and fear but not very good at reading a legal document.  There probably are parts of this bill I would hate.  It is 2000 pages and I can imagine they slipped something in or will attach some crazy stuff before it gets passed. My belief is that we live in a representative form of government and I don't realistically expect that every single thing it does will exactly match my opinions of what is best. 

Although some of her "problems" I love.

Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients

I believe we need to be giving more ability for care to health care professionals other than doctors. Examples include nurses for simple cold medications and shots to mid-wives for birthing help.

Squirl,

You cherry picked your reply. The "grandfather" clause has a life of five years. (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 201, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 221. 

Also, if your insurer LOWERS costs or switches a particular coverage, guess what? LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and exceptas required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1

Next, here's the page 118 text that you misread. (1) INITIAL STANDARDS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards. (2) PERIODIC UPDATING STANDARDS.—Under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide for the 15 periodic updating of the benefit standards previously
adopted under this section. (3) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may not adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits package or for level of cost-sharing that are inconsistent with the requirements for such a package or level under sections 222 (including subsection (d)) and 223(b)(5). Adopting an initial set of standards is pretty clear to me, as well as the statement "essential benefits package".

These are exact excerpts from http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf and not my opinion. I could refute any of your points, but what's the point? There is a reason this bill is longer than War and Peace and that is to stuff it with ridiculous power grabs like these I have outlined. I am hopeful that the Senate will exercise a thought process before voting on a Saturday like the House did, although the measure barely passed. One point I do concede is the addition of nurse practicioners and the like being able to offer low risk procedures in order to free up medical doctors. More of this type of reform and less MANDATING would lead to improvements.

 :)  Pox, I assume the same caveat applies to your opinion piece above?  Can you provide a similar list of citations from the proposed house bill and give us your informed interpretations where they differ?  So far, all we have from you are unsupported assertions----you may be right but you have not provided any real information for us to judge.

Most of it is half truths and distortions, such as when she claims that "qualified" plans are designed by the SHHS.  The bill calls for the creation of an independent commission of including patients, doctors, employers, and all stakeholders in health care to determine what is qualified, not the SHHS.  She claims Section 224 says the government will determine what qualified plans will cost; that is a bald faced lie.

She claims that plans will cost people 17% of their pretax income; that is an outrageous lie.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates (http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10691/hr3962SubsidiesRangelLtr.pdf#page=4) that ""Under the House bill, the maximum share of income that enrollees would have to pay for the reference plan in 2013 would range from 1.5 percent for those with income less than or equal to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 12 percent for those with income equal to 400 percent of the FPL."

She claims that the benefits for all plans are the same.  This is a lie.  What she claims is a ceiling on benefits is actually a floor, mandating minimum benefits, not maximums.

And the part about eviscerating Medicare is totally false.  The bill does not fundamentally change how doctors are paid.  And nowhere does the bill givce the government the power to make treatment decisions.

Ms. McCaughey is lying to you. 
.

QuoteFor those Sheeple...

QuoteFirst, engage in ad hominem attacks of anyone you disagree with. Next, engage in juvenile name calling

???

What alternatives do you propose? So far there hasn't been anything realistic presented. Under the present system a doctor is required to stabilize anyone who comes in the door, insurance companies bear a large part of those unpaid bills. An uninsured neighbor's wife ran up a >$300,000 bill before they got her stabilized enough to send home, this is not uncommon. A person who does not carry insurance intends to steal that coverage from his neighbor if he becomes seriously ill or injured. I'm not in favor of this plan but I'm not in favor of being robbed by the irresponsible either. As usual neither option is particularly appealing. The government typically steps in when people choose not to take responsibility for themselves, that is what is happening here. If one of you who doesn't carry insurance would like to explain to me how you intend to pay a large medical bill without stealing works, I'm listening. If this is your plan, you are a thief, the plan is there waiting for opportunity, you've already sold your soul. One alternative I see to the present system is to free the doctor to send you away untreated if you cannot pay, that would work. If you want to opt out you and your family should be allowed to totally opt out, that isn't the case now. The effect on the innocent is not happy to contemplate.

Alternatives I see; insurance pools of private citizens or people having a preplanned arrangement against their assets if they wished to self insure.  I do not want to pay for people who chose to lay around in the sunshine out of my wallet, nor does any charity. If you have a rational alternative to stealing from me then I'm listening, short of that you're bellyaching is falling on an ever increasing number of deaf ears. I suggest you find a realistic alternative, this will not really go away until some resolution is found that does not involve welfare for the undeserving.

Don,

You caught me! In my original post I was trying to be facetious and a bit funny, but failed I see. Mea Culpa. My facts still stand however. "BIG INSURANCE" is not our problem here, no more than "Big Oil", Big Banks, Big Food, etc.....   What is the problem is the tens of millions of folks who pay nothing for their care. My wife worked at a hospital for many years and saw first hand the amounts of folks who came in to the ER for minor bumps and scrapes that you and I would take care of at home. The reason? They don't have to pay for it. And if anyone thinks that these same folks, as well as the tens of millions of illegal immigrants are not going to go to the ER for every bump and cough, they're sorely mistaken. There's a lot to change in health care right now and Obama and the Democrats have the mandate, but I fear they are going to squander their mandate by attempting to force private citizens to buy a product they just don't want.

Quote from: Woodsrule on November 16, 2009, 07:11:47 AM
Don,

You caught me! In my original post I was trying to be facetious and a bit funny, but failed I see. Mea Culpa. My facts still stand however. "BIG INSURANCE" is not our problem here, no more than "Big Oil", Big Banks, Big Food, etc.....   What is the problem is the tens of millions of folks who pay nothing for their care. My wife worked at a hospital for many years and saw first hand the amounts of folks who came in to the ER for minor bumps and scrapes that you and I would take care of at home. The reason? They don't have to pay for it. And if anyone thinks that these same folks, as well as the tens of millions of illegal immigrants are not going to go to the ER for every bump and cough, they're sorely mistaken. There's a lot to change in health care right now and Obama and the Democrats have the mandate, but I fear they are going to squander their mandate by attempting to force private citizens to buy a product they just don't want.

I agree with Woodsrule...  there is a major problem with health care.  Having worked in a "socialist" form of health care for 20 yrs now - the Veterans Admin Medical Center, I also see 1st hand the abuse.  We see the same people come in - several times a week, to the ER... the other day a couple people had the complaint "I think I feel a cold coming on, so came to ER to get checked out."   d* d* d*  They will call an ambulance at the slightest whim - "don't have transportation, my pinky hurts, got a headache" - an AMBULANCE!!!  And because their income is low enough they won't have to pay a cent.  

Those that have a co-pay or will have to pay for the ambulance, will drive themselves in even if they are just about dying...

And the VA is just the tip of the iceburg.  I had never gone to the ER for myself & took my kids a couple times when they were growing up.  This year I've had to go 2x's.  One because I was deathly sick from a gallbladder attack that ended up giving me pancreatitis & causing my liver to be inflammed & ended up in the hospital for a week & having surgery - never been that sick.  Even had to be transported by an ambulance to another hospital from the ER because they didn't have the ability to care for me.  Again, recently I had to go because I smashed my hand in a door & split the top open & could see tendons, an intact blood vessel, & probably a bone or 2 - otherwise would have just butterflied it...  didn't see a doc for 10 hrs, took 12 hrs before I was discharged - but I drove myself back into town - 25 miles - had just finished a 13 hr shift at my ER got home at 1am & had to turn around & go back to town after the injury...   >:(  

That was the large regional trauma hospital - there's over 100 beds in the ER plus the hallways are full.  The waiting area was full of non-English speaking people, interpreters were needed if the nurse or doc couldn't speak their language.  My sister who worked in ER for 18yrs said that mainly those who were on welfare or who were here from another country & had no way to pay used the ER...  women came in to have their babies in this country so then their child was an American citizen & they would be eligible to get all the free services besides the fact they didn't pay for having the baby delivered...  

I pay for insurance & also have to pay some hefty co-pays for the care I receive.  We have such an "entitlement" society - the gov't feels they can steal from the haves to give to the have-nots & the have-nots have no conscience in taking advantage of all the freebies.  We don't have cable/satellite TV, we seldom go out to a restaurant (Glenn goes to the fast food places when he's working out of town).  We don't smoke or drink, so don't have any expenses there...  Those that use the services with no conscience for the costs or who is paying for it seem to be the alcoholics, heavy smokers (my parents both smoked but they paid for their healthcare), druggies, illegals, deadbeats - they can pay for all of their vices, they can afford the big screen TV's & all the channels, their cell phones (as someone noted earlier) & all the other perks but won't go to work or pay for insurance or their health care, just take advantage of the system.  (if people want to smoke & drink, that's their perogitive but don't make me pay for it!)

Now, if you can change the mindset of entitlement that our country has gotten into - the selfish attitudes, the envious attitudes, maybe we can get somewhere...  but when our own representatives are the biggest group of leeches we have setting the example, what do you expect?  

And yet, some think that the health care monstrosity that is being proposed & pushed through congress/senate think that's the answer - our country is doomed [toilet]  :(  

Every socialist society has fallen - when there is no incentive to work harder because any extra you do is given to some slacker, it kills the incentive.  And you will see that every society that has adopted what our country has & is, is doomed...  altruism is great but forced slavery & robbery of the fruits of our labors will never work no matter how good the intentions are...

Sassy,

I bow down to your expertise. You said very eloquently what I feel. Thank you. [cool]

ER horror stories....

Most urban myths are really not myths!

 [cool]

Sassy:  There is a great deal of truth and wisdom in your thoughts on this subject----human nature can be so harmful at times. It can be discouraging to those of us that value living responsible lives. Don't give up.

Quote from: Sassy on November 16, 2009, 11:59:53 AM

Every socialist society has fallen...

That will come as surprise to Canada, Australia, Israel and others, I am sure.   ???

I don't recall any successful pure socialist countries left---unless you consider North Korea successful----there are quite a few "mixed" or quasi socialist ones----Cuba is even sliding quietly back into a semi-capitalist economy and China is going capitalist as fast as they can. We are somewhere in between also----there are virtually no "pure capitalist" economies either.

I promised myself I wouldn't do this (I tend to get too passionate) but I'll make this one post:

Do you beleive in the Constitution, the nation as it was founded and with the tools it was given?  Do you beleive in 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?  Or do you believe in "to each according to their means, for each according to their needs"?

It really comes down to that I'd wager.

Me?  I believe in the Constitution and the founding of this Nation as well as the tools provided.

By the way, for those aghast at the idea that someone would say that let me remind you that there is a tool provided called 'the amendment process' in which via the Constitution itself you can make changes (like abolish slavery).  So perhaps when all this is said and done 'we the people' can amend the Constitution to say do something like 'abolish social health care'.

In the meantime sadly, the socialists will have their way though amazingly they won't even be providing health care for all American's.  No that's right, I hear now they are saying they won't be providing health care to at least 30 MILLION people.  Hmmm....funny but what you are saying is that since we have about 30 million people who don't (supposedly anyway) have health care (45 million minus the illegals by the way) then you have to pass a 2000 page law that garauntees that you will cover exactly everyone BUT those 30 million??

Color me stupid but just how does that work?  How is it those who support this can do so with a straight face in light of the fact that it actually does not do exactly what they claim they need to do.

It's like saying you need a new firetruck to save all the people from burning houses but now that you almost have the firetruck making the statement "well this firetruck won't actually save any of those burning houses from burning, but it costs more then the other one".

I'm just curious, but once you're done spending this TRILLION dollars when exactly, will you cover those 30 million people?

ALso, while I am at it, if I am to go to jail for not having a plan doesn't that mean I'm then one of those 30 million who couldn't afford one in the first place?  SO um, how does that work?

ahhhhh.....ok I'm out....

No I lied....this last thing....

If this is the end all to be all health care bill why does it not just abolish ALL OTHER plans, bills and programs?  I mean if the good ol' gubermint is going to fix health care then why not do away with medicare, medicaid, the VA etc etc etc.....after all, if they could fix it (and Medicare is going bankrupt remember) then why not fix it all?  Why not just abolish it, socialize it all (if that's the answer which clearly supporters -- however ill informed they are -- beleive in)?

I'll tell you why.....one word:  sellout

You see, it's just one big pile of donkey dung and the easiest way to spot it is by digging into it and seeing what's included.

So you want to fix the problem by having government come in and save the day huh?  Well I'm just curious, when did we start putting out house fires with gasoline exactly?

Cheers
OlJarhead.

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 16, 2009, 05:20:03 PM

Quote from: Sassy on November 16, 2009, 11:59:53 AM

Every socialist society has fallen...

That will come as surprise to Canada, Australia, Israel and others, I am sure.   ???

Just give them time  [waiting]  

Anyone ever read the book Marx & Satan ?  By Richard Wurmbrand?  He was a prisoner in Romania for 14 yrs.  He quotes a lot of Marx, Engels, Bruno Bauer, Lenin, Stalin...  

On his deathbed, Lenin wrote "I committed a great error.  My nightmare is to have the feeling that I'm lost in an ocean of blood from the innumerable victims.  It is too late to return.  To save our country, Russia, we would have needed men like Francis of Assisi.  With ten men like him we would have saved Russia."  

Marx wrote "A silent, unavoidable revolution is taking place in society, a revolution that cares as little about the human lives it destroys as an earthquake cares about the houses it rages.  Classes & races that are too weak to dominate the new conditions of existence will be defeated."  (Wolfe Marxism--One Hundred Years in the Life of a Doctrine

Engels wrote  "The next world war will make whole reactionary peoples disappear from the face of the earth. (Engels, MEW, XXXV, p. 122)
"This too is progress.  Obviously this cannot be fulfilled without crushing some delicate national flower.  But without violence & without pitilessness nothing can be obtained in history."  (Deutschland Magazine,  Feb. 1985)

Milovan Djilas, prominent Communist leader of Yugoslavia who was personally acquainted with Stalin, wrote:  "Was it not so that the demonic power & energy of Stalin consisted in this, that he made the [Communist] movement & every person in it pass to a state of confusion & stupefaction, thus creating & ensuring his reign of fear...?"  He also says about the whole ruling class of the U.S.S.R.:  "They make a semblance of believing in the ideal of socialism, in a future society without classes.  In reality, they believe in nothing except organized power."  (Milovan Djilas, Strange Times, "Kontinent" 33, p. 25)

I could post a lot more quotes - much more scary & some more pathetic by these men at the ends of their lives, but this is enough for now...

So much for socialism/communism/the collective...   [toilet]

BTW, there were several postings before I finished this post...  

All the free market countries have failed.  Just give them time...

Capitalism certainly isn't perfect---like all human devices it will serve some better than others. However, I haven't seen a better system for encouraging the human drive for a better life. Theories are well and good but I need to see results in the real world before I would abandon what we have.

Obamacare hasn't even made it to the theory stage---it's a ridiculous mess and is doomed to failure---hopefully before it reaches Obama's desk.

Who is asking you to abandon what you have?  The public option will cover less than 10% of the country.  Those who like their private insurance can keep it.

Answer me this.  If conservatives are all about self reliance and personal accountability, how come most of the red states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes?  And most blue states pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending?  

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

How much longer should liberals in the blue states continue to pay for red state's self reliance and personal accountability?

I'm not so certain that acting irresponsibly because others are acting irresponsibly makes one responsible. It will drive change so it is another path, I'm not so sure it will lead to a different place. If it does I haven't seen anyone mention what it will be.

Every socialist society has fallen

To my knowledge EVERY society has fallen, or will, all are doomed, this is the nature of societies. The Roman Kingdom lasted about 245 years, the republic lasted about 450 years. The Athenian democracy lasted under 180 years. I believe the longest lasting societies were the Roman empire and the Ottoman empire. Is longevity the best yardstick to measure societies by?

We are paying for poor people and illegals now, you are also paying for those quite able to pay who choose not to. All of these people are already getting socialized medicine. At the moment we are paying for the have-nots and for many of the haves. Slackers do kill my incentive. Why should I pay their way? If we choose to do nothing at some point I must drop my insurance, join their ranks, and let you pay my way, after all, you have more than me. A short time later you will join our ranks, the insurance and medical care system will spiral in. Is this leading towards or away from a stable society?  

Those that opt out have no vested interest in reforming the system, they hide among the other freeloaders. They all already belong to, and like, a socialist system. They are rationing your care. Those that cannot, and those that choose to not pay, are already cramming the ER. Does forcing those able to pay for their insurance increase or decrease the number of freeloaders? If everyone who can pay does, and if they share in the cost of taking care of those who can not pay, is it a more or less fair society? If there are more unhappy paying members of society do they have more or less control over the fewer freeloaders? Should we give everyone, no matter how poor, a graduated but personally high deductable? Could make a case for that.

One way or the other another plan will surface, it must. You have not provided one. The path we are on is doomed to fail. Not making a decision in a timely manner is very often a decision as well. Some add momentum but choose not to paddle. You think its mean to make them paddle and don't seem inclined to throw them over the side. Hope we enjoy the ride.

DonP, you are right, every society does fail sooner or later...  IMHO, every society ends up failing due to the breakdown in the moral fabric - whether the society is a country, state, city, religions etc. 

My signature below quotes Jesus as saying "you will know the truth & the truth will set you free."  Basically, you can live in a free society & still not be truly free...  if you are bound up in your mind with guilt, hatred, envy, greed, etc, etc, you will never be free.  If you believe lies, you are a prisoner to those lies...  Each person has freedom to determine if they want to be free or not, each person has the freedom to search for TRUTH...

We can banter back & forth forever & never come to terms on this issue because there is a bigger picture...

So, what I am hearing on the news toay is that the POTUS wants to give 12 miliion illeglas amnisty. I guess this means they then are intitle to socialist medicine too.

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 16, 2009, 11:20:53 PM

Answer me this.  If conservatives are all about self reliance and personal accountability, how come most of the red states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes?  And most blue states pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending?  

You are using very old data to make a very weak argument.  Look at the electoral map and compare it against the states in most serious financial trouble. 
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/11/11/pew-report-nine-states-join-california-in-facing-fiscal-crisis/
One red, nine blue.

Apples and oranges.  The red states still take more federal spending than they pay in taxes, regardless of the financial health of the states.  If they are so darn independent, they should send it back.

This is interesting... it explains that the blue states are in areas where there is higher earnings and respectively higher tax brackets.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

It's actually pretty poetic that democrats are being taxed at a higher rate.  (Which, btw... I am against.  I support a flat tax).

So.... higher income folks are paying higher taxes to their states too.  And those blue states are now in deep financial trouble.  An example of liberal leadership in action! 

Quote from: NM_Shooter on November 18, 2009, 09:06:05 AM

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 16, 2009, 11:20:53 PM

Answer me this.  If conservatives are all about self reliance and personal accountability, how come most of the red states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes?  And most blue states pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending?  

You are using very old data to make a very weak argument.  Look at the electoral map and compare it against the states in most serious financial trouble. 
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/11/11/pew-report-nine-states-join-california-in-facing-fiscal-crisis/
One red, nine blue.

The electoral map is for presidential elections and only this past one.  The financial jeopardy is from state governments. Many of these states are equally controlled democrat to republican between the legislature and executive branch.  The most telling descriptor is most of these states where the largest run up in property values and collapse of the tax base in mortgage foreclosures.
"The United States housing bubble was an economic bubble affecting many parts of the United States housing market, including areas of California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, the Northeast megalopolis, and the Southwest markets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble

I do agree that 2004 is old data. In 2004 the "red" states that voted for GWB controlled the house and senate this combined with that most major metro areas are "blue" and pay more taxes.  Also most I expect this to change with the new control of the legislature.  In 2008 3 of those ten states voted "blue" and 16 of the 20 Senators from those states are now "blue."  Although the whole red and blue thing I find over simplified and more for TV.

Want to write a letter to your editor on this subject?  They make it easy for you:

http://ga3.org/campaign/healthpetition?qp_source=cloture_durbin

I got signed up by a well meaning cousin in Illinois(I live in MN) to Durbin's newsletters.  It has been an education on how they work.  Everything on his website is predetermined.  They had a "survey" where all of your options included supporting the public option...then surprise surprise, the survey says...public option.

Why I hate politicians!

Forcing us to buy insurance when I believe is unconstitutional is extortion. Simple as that.

Forcing others to pay your tab is theft, simple as that. I haven't heard a plan yet as to how those of you without insurance plan to handle that debt without stealing from others. Another plan I could see working is all the unisureds could be assessed the cost of treating the uninsured population. At the end of the year you either show proof of insurance or pay whatever your piece of the pie is.

Quote from: Don_P on November 24, 2009, 03:35:18 PM
Forcing others to pay your tab is theft, simple as that.

I agree 100%. That is precisely what this so-called health care bill will do. It will force those without health issues to pay the tab for those who do. Simply wrong.

Quote from: harry51 on November 25, 2009, 01:17:17 PM

It will force those without health issues to pay the tab for those who do. Simply wrong.

How is that different from what we have right now?

QuoteBy 2010, the additional costs for the uninsured will be $1,502, and total premiums will hit $17,273. In 11 states, the costs of the uninsured will exceed $2,000 per family.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8144237/

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 25, 2009, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: harry51 on November 25, 2009, 01:17:17 PM

It will force those without health issues to pay the tab for those who do. Simply wrong.

How is that different from what we have right now?

Quote

We are not forced to participate right now, that's the difference. Here's a take on the bill from a constitutional law prof who has read the whole thing:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2339355/posts

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 25, 2009, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: harry51 on November 25, 2009, 01:17:17 PM

It will force those without health issues to pay the tab for those who do. Simply wrong.

How is that different from what we have right now?

I do not presently have a choice in paying for those who choose to act irresponsibly, however I agree with Harry and that was one of my proposed solutions to this problem. No treatment without showing a method of payment. Release the hospital from having to treat those that will not pay. My insurance works for me, the healthy and those who think they always will be do not pay for or use the system. The free market can take care of the problem.

QuoteSurely, surely I'm reading something wrong here. Let the "process of selection" take care of the problem by just letting people without insurance die preventable deaths? A survival of the fittest thing?

It's already happening.

Once the government gets control of health care they'll mandate all sorts of things people have never even dreamed of. Any risk taking will be considered an excuse to exclude people from care. Drugs will be forced on people and not taking them will be an excuse to refuse care. The list will grow with time until who knows what will be required. Permits to have children anyone?

Quote from: Don_P on November 25, 2009, 05:08:02 PM
My insurance works for me, the healthy and those who think they always will be do not pay for or use the system.

If only it was that easy. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree.

Quote from: harry51 on November 25, 2009, 03:42:34 PMWe are not forced to participate right now, that's the difference.

Yes, you are forced to participate right now.  Your insurance bill is over $1000 higher each year because the cost of the uninsured is passed along to you.  Your taxes are higher now, because the cost of the uninsured is passed along to you.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/05/news/economy/healthcare_underinsured/index.htm

Now, you can wish for social Darwinism to free you from this burden, but that will not make it so.  That will never happen. 

You are paying for it now, and you will continue paying for it, until your premiums are simply too high for you to afford any longer, and then you will join the ranks of the uninsured.

Then who will you curse?

Your insurance bill is over $1000 higher each year because the cost of the uninsured is passed along to you.  Your taxes are higher now, because the cost of the uninsured is passed along to you.

My health insurance isn't anywhere near $1,000 higher each year. But I can tell you that when auto insurance was decreed to be mandatory here in Kalifornia a number of years ago, the price went up, not down. The same will be true of health insurance, with or without the "public option."

Then who will you curse?

Those among us gullible and selfish enough to trade their liberty and mine for an empty promise of security, and amoral enough to use force of government to do it.

Quote from: harry51 on November 28, 2009, 01:04:25 AM

My health insurance isn't anywhere near $1,000 higher each year.

So who is paying for all the uninsured people who use the emergency room as their primary care?

Then who will you curse?

Those among us gullible and selfish enough to trade their liberty and mine for an empty promise of security, and amoral enough to use force of government to do it.
[/quote]

Wow Harry that is quite a quote [cool]

It sums up my feelings on the whole mess, I'm not here for the Gov. they are here for me and as a U.S. citizen I hold the highest office in the land. So don't tell me I'm going to get fined if I don't buy something you are selling.

For all you that think this plan will work pull your head out.

We need to fix what is broke first! No more treatment with out paying. No more malpractice suits and bring the cost down way down.

Who do you think owns the pharmaceutical and insurance companys?

Nothing like telling it like it is Whitlock.  Subtlety is not one of your fine points I assume... [waiting]  rofl

Malpractice lawsuits and defensive medicine account for less than .5% of health care spending in this country: 

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

Banning malpractice lawsuits will only hurt patients, and will not significantly reduce health care costs.  They tried capping awards in Texas, and malpractice insurance rates went up:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/malpractice_ge.html

.5% is a start
And look at your sorce a gov. web site [crz]

Pox do you work for the goverment or what ???

Wake up man you think malpractice insurance and lawyers are cheap!

Who do you think pays that cost?

Compared to the amount spent on health care annually, malpractice awards, insurance and lawyers are a pittance.  They certainly don't add up to any kind of reform that will make a dent in the problems our health care system is facing.  Our system is broken, and will result in more and more people unable to afford either health care or health insurance.  Cutting .5% does not allow you to wash your hands of it and announce, "Good enough!".

You said no more treatment without paying.  I sure hope you and your loved ones never face a chronic health care crisis that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, then your insurance company drops you.  Your heroic self-reliance is so courageous, until someone you love is in constant pain, and you can't raise the $300,000 for the treatment her doctor recommends.   I have been there, I live with it every day.  I have the best insurance money can buy, and they simply refused to pay for the stem cell transplant my wife needs. 

I am glad to hear your life doesn't have that kind of problem, and I honestly hope it never does, because it sucks. 

I have to disagree with you on the .5% cost, Pox.  Sassy works at a hospital as well as was recently hospitalized.

The defensive medicine is more like 50% of the real hospitalization cost as it includes tests for things that may not be tested for as well as medications mandated by protocols in order to prevent any possibility of a lawsuit for malpractice.

Medical lawsuits are started over anything at the drop of a hat.  Malpractice insurance is putting many doctors out of business.

But that is only one case, Glenn.  Surely you don't think you can extrapolate Sassy's experience to all hospitalizations, do you?

As for malpractice insurance putting doctors out of business, did you read about what happened in Texas when they capped malpractice awards?  They went up!

Unfortunately, many people think insurance companies pay claims out of the premiums they collect, and that just isn't so.  They invest that money, and pay claims out of the capital gains.  That works great when the market is going up, but when the market crashes, insurance companies start raising rates to cover their losses in the market.

Malpractice awards have very little to do with malpractice rates.

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 28, 2009, 04:56:00 PM
Compared to the amount spent on health care annually, malpractice awards, insurance and lawyers are a pittance.  They certainly don't add up to any kind of reform that will make a dent in the problems our health care system is facing.  Our system is broken, and will result in more and more people unable to afford either health care or health insurance.  Cutting .5% does not allow you to wash your hands of it and announce, "Good enough!".

You said no more treatment without paying.  I sure hope you and your loved ones never face a chronic health care crisis that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, then your insurance company drops you.  Your heroic self-reliance is so courageous, until someone you love is in constant pain, and you can't raise the $300,000 for the treatment her doctor recommends.   I have been there, I live with it every day.  I have the best insurance money can buy, and they simply refused to pay for the stem cell transplant my wife needs. 

I am glad to hear your life doesn't have that kind of problem, and I honestly hope it never does, because it sucks. 

Do you think that this new heathcare plan will pay for your wifes treatment?

Glenn wasn't using my experience for the 50%.  At least 50% of what our docs & nurse practitioners do is defensive medicine.  I hear them say that very thing several times a day.  

There are all sorts of expensive tests - MRI's, CT's, ultrasounds, just plain xrays, extensive lab tests, etc etc.  Their statements go something like this...  "I better order all these things, if I don't & there's something I missed, I'll be sued."  The cost of malpractice insurance is exorbitant - most lawsuits are settled out of court, so what the public sees, are the few that make it through the courts & into the news.

Not only do they have to do all these tests on the patients, but there are guidelines for someone who is diabetic (they have to be on a diabetes med, a cholesterol lowering med & an ace inhibitor (blood pressure med that supposedly protects the kidneys - it also causes a dry hacking cough in a good percentage of the patients).  That is just one disease...  you get to hypertension, congestive heart failure, emphysema & a myriad of other health problems - they all have their medications.  Almost all  require a person to be on a cholesterol lowering med (statin).  I would not EVER take a statin!  They cause liver & muscle damage.  Patients have to have their liver function checked out every 3-6 mo's to make sure the med isn't damaging it.  Someone who drinks alcohol & takes a statin is doing a double whammy on their liver.  And if they get a bad case of muscle pain/damage, that can cause rhabdomylosis - the breakdown of the muscles which is very serious & can cause kidney failure & even death!

Psych meds - that's another major area where a new med seems to come out on a weekly basis - I can't even keep track of them all.  Many of our patients are on several different types.  

I'm glad I'll be retiring within a year...  I couldn't stand behind a lot of the guidelines that the docs are expected to follow.  Vaccinations are just one of the questionable treatments.  

Anyway, I would venture to say that defensive medicine is even higher than 50%...   :o

Quote from: Whitlock

Do you think that this new heathcare plan will pay for your wifes treatment?

Like 70% of Americans under the proposed bill, I don't need it to pay for treatment; I have health insurance.  The current health care reform bill  would regulate the death panels the insurance companies are using to ration health care right now.  I want to change the law so that insurance companies can't come between doctors and their patients.

Quote from: Sassy on November 28, 2009, 07:01:07 PM

Anyway, I would venture to say that defensive medicine is even higher than 50%...   :o

Are there any reliable statistics to support that claim?  I don't see how we can expect to set any governmental policy based on anecdotal evidence.

Whitlock nailed it.

Liberals (pro socialists) are missing the big issue.....

THE PROBLEM IS NOT INSURANCE

The very first question we should ask is:  "why does healthcare COST so much?"  Note that I did not ask why insurance costs so much.  I've said it here before:  I have great insurance and crappy healthcare. 

1)  Too many are getting it for "free".  Socialized medicine means those with jobs pay for those without.
2)  The government has their nose in it.  Too many regulations, restrictions, and controls.  The US government has never, ever, improved anything over that which was already established under local control. 

Pox, I thought you liberal types were big on darwin and his theories.  Wouldn't darwin be a proponent of extinction for those who can not take care of themselves?  P.S.  I find it amusing that you are challenging others to back up their data.  I snorted Dr. Pepper through my nose when I read that.

Frank, I have heard that you should never take Dr. Pepper at face value, especially when he has been through your nose.  Check your facts, Frank.... [waiting]

Quote from: NM_Shooter on November 28, 2009, 09:13:27 PM

Pox, I thought you liberal types were big on darwin and his theories.  Wouldn't darwin be a proponent of extinction for those who can not take care of themselves?

Well, that is certainly a novel take on scientific theories.  By your reasoning, if I believe in the theory of gravity, I shouldn't ever fly in an airplane.  Now I've gone and blown my herb tea out my nose!

Enormous difference between indifferent scientific Darwinism and Social Darwinist ethics, which anticipate eugenics and racist ideology.

In any case, letting the uninsured die isn't on the table, thank God. We have yet to sink to the depths of that primitivism.

RainDog, I seem to remember that when you go to a certain age or with certain problems that the government would stop your healthcare or deny you coverage in this new plan.  What could be in those 2000 unread pages?

Pox, I am a pilot and as a matter of fact, it is safer on the ground, sometimes....

Don't tell me - let me guess, but, after the herb tea it is the granola chunks... :)

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 28, 2009, 09:41:02 PM

Quote from: NM_Shooter on November 28, 2009, 09:13:27 PM

Pox, I thought you liberal types were big on darwin and his theories.  Wouldn't darwin be a proponent of extinction for those who can not take care of themselves?

Well, that is certainly a novel take on scientific theories.  By your reasoning, if I believe in the theory of gravity, I shouldn't ever fly in an airplane.  Now I've gone and blown my herb tea out my nose!

I can't think of a better example of complete lack of logic, and misunderstanding of physical science.  Nicely done!

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on November 28, 2009, 07:17:03 PM

Quote from: Whitlock

Do you think that this new heathcare plan will pay for your wifes treatment?

Like 70% of Americans under the proposed bill, I don't need it to pay for treatment; I have health insurance.  The current health care reform bill  would regulate the death panels the insurance companies are using to ration health care right now.  I want to change the law so that insurance companies can't come between doctors and their patients.

I will take that as a yes. You chase your tail a lot don't you :-\

Having the goverment run our medical system is ridiculous. I agree with Harry and would like to add we are promised "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not medical insurance. This will sound horrible however when it comes down to it it is a fee for service that has gone amuck.  It should have stayed a fee for service where a patient went to the doctor and then submitted a bill to their insurance company who payed a certain percentage.  Thus making the consumer more responsible for thier health and the cost. I truly believe that when it was taken out of the hands of the consumer (paying as they go) it was the beginning of the downfall. People became sheep and lost their fiscal resposibilty in their own care and maintence.  In a sense we became like those on the dole. Yes we pay for the insurance but we surrendered to much of our own personal responsibilty for the sake of convience and who has really read thier policy? Seriously, who understands what insurance they have and what is covered? It is a contract that people sign up for and I believe at least 90% of them have no idea what agreement they signed.  We have surrendered have truly have signed over our health for others to manage. At least with the 80/20 policy people paid more attention and had imo a greater choice in how toproceed with their treatment.

This pretty much sums it up.

(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/image1.jpg)

That's a good one shooter.

Personally I think they should fix the economy frist [slap]

But I believe it is all part of a socialist plan to get us all to shut up and obay :-X

"But I believe it is all part of a socialist plan to get us all to shut up and obay"

Whitlock, you couldn't be more right. This ploy and the "global warming" ploy are nothing more than ways to control you. If govmint can control your very health, then what's left? Also, the "GREEN" folks want us to pay a FINE for being a successful country. Cap and Trade, Carbon Offsets, etc... are ways for some to take your money, keep some for them of course (Al Gore, et al) and then give some to countries they deem worthy. I haven't heard Obama and crew call for an investigation into the damning evidence coming from England.

Food for thought from http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000011651.cfm


Marriage Penalty Hidden in Health Care Reform


by Kim Trobee, editor

Higher premiums may discourage people from getting married.

A closer look at premium payments in both the House and Senate health care bills shows higher premiums that might discourage couples from tying the knot.

For instance, in the House version, an unmarried couple each making $30,000 a year would pay $1,320 combined each year for private health insurance.  If that couple chose to marry, their premium would jump to $12,000 a year, a difference of $10,680.

Allen Quist, a former Minnesota State legislator and current candidate for Congress, discovered the penalty while looking at numbers from the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor.

"This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360," he wrote in a blog post.  "A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger."

The Senate bill includes a similar penalty.

"The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance," Quist wrote.  "Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance — a penalty of $9,183 for getting married."

The numbers are based on the government's definition of "poverty level."  Those above poverty level will pay higher premiums, and the excess would be redistributed to those in lower income levels.

Quist explains that the government's definitions will play a critical role in whether people will choose to get married.

"'Household' is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes, thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried," he wrote.  "The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so."

John Helmberger, CEO of the Minnesota Family Council and Institute, said the middle class will once again take the hit financially.

"This hidden marriage penalty," he said, "hits hardest the very people that are most suffering from the pathologies resulting from the decline of marriage in our culture."

Many people on this thread have been biased and misleading. Do your own research.

The bill does not say that you will go to jail if you don't get government approved healthcare. You'll have to pay 2.5% if you choose not to take social healthcare, and you can still get any healthcare you want. The bill does not say that all people have to pay the same premium of $15000. The premiums are well proportioned compared to the average (non-government) healthcare.

I'm disgusted by all the "carrying bums on my back" comments, as if all the people living in low class/poverty conditions CHOOSE to be in the position they are. Some of you are completely incapable of seeing situations from more than one perspective.

SardonicSmile,

Some of us have worked in the health care system for years. We have seen  the situation on many levels, and despite it all people do get treated in an ER even when they can not pay. Many people choose to get their nails done, their hair and wear designer clothes, but when they present at the ER they have no money. Yes they are probably at th poverty level, but its obvious they choose to spend their money differently.  I have seen many times over and over parents can not pay for their childrens Asthma medicine but they smell, no they stink of cigarettes and they step out to have a smoke while their child is getting a breathing treatment. They can afford their cigarettes but can not afford tylenol for their child. People who work in the health care give and give. So, when it comes to it people do get treated even though we know some are just abusing the system.

I kinda get tired of hearing about those in poverty that do not choose to be there. Some do you need to understand some do choose it, others have differing ideas on how to spend their money and others maybe caught between a hard place and a rock. but guess what, each state has medicare and other saftey lines for those willing to ask. They even have county run medical units but people refuse to go there because they just do not want to wait or hate the idea of going to a county clinic, because its beneath them. 

You say no one will go to jail if they don't get government health care bit they will have to pay 2.5%. Now if they refuse to pay I bet they will go to jail seeing that the IRS is probably going to be the administrator of the program and they like to get their money and have thrown many into jail for tax evasion.

So before telling me to do my own research, I highly suggest you spend 6 months working at an ER or a Dr's office and see what happens better yet work at a county clinic.

Quote from: StinkerBell on December 14, 2009, 09:34:44 PM
SardonicSmile,

Some of us have worked in the health care system for years. We have seen  the situation on many levels, and despite it all people do get treated in an ER even when they can not pay. Many people choose to get their nails done, their hair and wear designer clothes, but when they present at the ER they have no money. Yes they are probably at th poverty level, but its obvious they choose to spend their money differently.  I have seen many times over and over parents can not pay for their childrens Asthma medicine but they smell, no they stink of cigarettes and they step out to have a smoke while their child is getting a breathing treatment. They can afford their cigarettes but can not afford tylenol for their child. People who work in the health care give and give. So, when it comes to it people do get treated even though we know some are just abusing the system.

I kinda get tired of hearing about those in poverty that do not choose to be there. Some do you need to understand some do choose it, others have differing ideas on how to spend their money and others maybe caught between a hard place and a rock. but guess what, each state has medicare and other saftey lines for those willing to ask. They even have county run medical units but people refuse to go there because they just do not want to wait or hate the idea of going to a county clinic, because its beneath them. 

You say no one will go to jail if they don't get government health care bit they will have to pay 2.5%. Now if they refuse to pay I bet they will go to jail seeing that the IRS is probably going to be the administrator of the program and they like to get their money and have thrown many into jail for tax evasion.

So before telling me to do my own research, I highly suggest you spend 6 months working at an ER or a Dr's office and see what happens better yet work at a county clinic.

I never said there weren't bums out there that don't deserve free healthcare.

BUT.. there is no legal way to separate the sincere people from the bums. I'm willing to give the bums a free ride in order to help those few sincere people. You can't tell me that there is always a way out. I personally know two people that were born into tough situations that can't simply be "asked" out of.

You give and give? You make atleast 30,000 a year, and you're complaining about an extra 2.5% in order to ease suffering.

Sometimes people need a break. So what if people are wasting our money? Oh, right.. that's outrageous because this is the home of the American dream (greed).

I work with the poor in the north valley of ABQ.  My group provides financial assistance for those who need emergency help with rent, utilities, or food.  I am absolutely in the thick of working with the "poor".  As a requirement of our work, we have to make a home visit and fill out a report.  In three years of volunteer work, I can count on one hand the number of poor who didn't have at least one of the following:

1)  have a big screen TV
2)  reeked of tobacco
3)  were stoned / drunk

We err on the side of generosity, especially when there are kids in the home.  However, in almost every one of these cases, that family / person was in a bad condition because at some point in their lives they made one or more very bad decisions.  Poverty was not placed upon them... they went looking for it.  The sad thing is that they keep making bad decisions.   We have a LOT of programs that will allow people to improve their quality of life through hard work and sacrifice.  But that is the hard way.  I find us as a species to be overwhelmingly lazy.  Not all, of course, but an overwhelming amount. 

In the US, we have the richest "poor" in the world.  We make being poor a rewarded lifestyle, and the liberal party promotes it as a means for gathering support.  The means for funding this lifestyle is socialism, which is exactly what this new "health care" bill is all about.

I choose to work with the poor as a volunteer.  All of our funds (every last bit) comes as a donation from my parish.  I donate time, talent and treasure to my community, and will give the shirt off my back to someone who needs it. 

But God help those who come to me and demand my shirt. 

-f-

P.S.  Greed is not purely a bad characteristic.  If we were to eliminate every job that was ultimately in place because of someone's desire to create wealth, what do you think would remain?   And BTW.. if you think that a medical worker / nurse who gets paid $30k is compensated anywhere near for what they contribute, you should mention this the next time you are on a gurney.   

Quote from: NM_Shooter on December 14, 2009, 11:43:46 PM
1)  have a big screen TV

So true, in my experience too. Delivering Christmas cheer to needy families with kids over the past half dozen Christmases, nearly everyone of them had a bigger TV than we do. Much bigger is some cases. Sorta makes me wonder what I'm doing at times, why we bother.

[nearly jaded]

 Yeah, those folks living under the poverty level have it made with their big television sets, don't they? Might be the only decent thing they own, and since they can't afford to do anything much else but watch a used TV that they picked up somewhere...

Obviously livin' the life of Riley, they are.

Seriously, though, I do understand the need for a certain economic class to demonize the poor as being lazy, stupid, criminal, and/or basically immoral. They have to see people in that position as being somehow basically different or inferior, or else they'd have to come to grips with the fact that they themselves could be easily on the same boat with only a couple of bad turns of luck.

You insulate yourself from that scary possibility by pretending that it couldn't happen to you. You aren't one of THEM.

Wait a minute... I don't think anyone here said that the poor were... "lazy, stupid, criminal, and/or basically immoral."

What was said was some people make poor choices. They frequently don't learn from those poor choices. They make poor choices serially. Why select a TV that fills the wall across the room when a smaller and less expensive one would be good enough and leave money for something else? We own a 26" LCD TV. It sits on the coffee table closer to the sofa and provides a wonderful picture. If it hadn't been for the digital over the air broadcast change we'd still have the old Toshiba tube set we bought in 1999, but using a converter box with a TV and the old DVD recorder was a hassle. So now we have a new TV and a new DVR. Hey, that's another thing!! ... Broadcast TV for free vs. cable or satellite subscriptions.

I have a dear relative who had the same upbringing, same chances in early life, as I did. We are only a few years apart in age, but a world apart in terms of being able to look after ourselves in the past, present and future. I can not comprehend some of the choices they freely made in their life. I love them, but I don't see why what I see as my smarter choices means that I should pay for their errors. I am not perfect. I have wasted money, done foolish things, but on the whole can pay my own way.

Good posts, Stinky & Frank!  I agree wholeheartedly!  I've been a nurse for 20yrs, my sister & a good friend worked in ER for close to 20 yrs as I am currently doing (8 yrs).  I work for the Veterans Administration but still see the same abuse.  People go to the ER because they don't want to wait for a scheduled appt, don't want to wait for a same day appt, forgot about their appt, etc etc.  There are very few REAL emergencies...  if their income is low enough, they won't hesitate to call an ambulance because they know they won't have to pay for it - you wouldn't believe the minor things people call ambulances for!

Many are down & out & granted, there's a lot of people psychologically scarred from the wars they've been in, but the alcoholism, drug use & smoking is rampant.  Many complain that they have no money, but still continue with those behaviors - yes, they are addictive, yes, often they are self-medicating, but we put them through program after program, as soon as they get out, they are back to doing the same things until they get so down & out that they call the paramedics to bring them in so they can stay for a few days to dry out, get medical care & some decent food & then they are back out on the streets again & this goes on over & over & over...  

My sis & friend & other nurses I know who work in the private sector or county hospitals/ER's say there are seldom even any English speaking patients in the ER.  The hospitals are expected to pay for translators & all the health care with no or little reimbursement.  Tell me a country I can go to & get that type of care?

I had never gone to the ER for myself, in my life, until this year & ended up using the ER 2x's.  I'm thankful that when I got so sick last spring, we were close by our little hospital in the mtns - the ER took excellent care of me, got me shipped out to a large hospital who could care for me in a timely manner & there were no complications.

Now, compare that with a couple months ago when I sustained a laceration across my hand - I could see the tendons, bones & blood vessels - was just gonna put butterfly bandaids on it but didn't know about the infection potential - couldn't wash it myself because when the water touched the wound, it sent me through the roof due to nerves being exposed.  Also didn't know if I had a fracture.  Anyway, I had worked a 12.5hr shift, got off at midnight, got home, accidently slammed my hand in the door, drove 30min back to town, got lost for another 45min down in the bad side of town at closing time for the bars & the fair was going on.  Got to ER approx 3am - didn't see a doc until 8:30am, didn't get the wound washed up until 9:30am, got sutured & finally out by around noon...  

The ER waiting room was full of non-English speaking people, the hallways in the back where treatment was given for the overflow was full of non-English speaking people, interpreters were being called for over the loudspeaker, it was a chaotic mess!  This hospital/ER is a level I trauma center but it is overwhelmed with so many non-emergent problems.  Believe me, I would have never have gone if I didn't think I might have something broken or the risk for infection.  At that, going for all those hours without having the wound cleansed - being in the dirty waiting room exposed to all the colds, flu, exotic diseases (I worked there as a student nurse & took care of both adults & children & neonates).  Most of the kids I took care of could not speak English, neither could their families, they had all kinds of infectious diarrheas, worms, lice, & who knows what else.  The babies in the neonatal ICU that I took care of (I worked in the stepdown area where the babies were a little bigger & not at as much risk) were mostly from crack cocaine moms.  Now the big problem is meth.  I see that at the VA, also - you'd think people who are 40-50-60y/o would have grown out of this behavior but they haven't.

Anyway - when I take care of the patients, I give my all to them.  I've been injured several times trying to keep  drunk patients from falling down.  I've seen my co-workers bit, hit, cussed at, threatened, etc.  I walked into a room one time to bring a meal to one of my co-worker's pt & he kicked me in the chest because he was mad at her, cussing & yelling at her.  We get pts coming in by ambulance yelling, cursing, threatening to kill us as they're wheeled through the door.  We get pts who haven't taken a bath for a month, dried urine, feces, vomit all over, belligerent, yet we give compassionate care & the best care we possibly can.  I often feel like I'm putting my license on the line because it can be so busy you don't even get a break for over 12 hrs.  Sometimes another patient will be listening to someone ranting & raving because they had to wait a couple hrs & that pt will say to us "I'm just grateful that I can receive free care & you've always treated me really well, I understand when I have to wait awhile, that there are other sicker pts being seen & you all are doing the best you can."  We have a lot of patients who are very courteous & appreciative which makes up for those who aren't & makes it worthwhile.  We realize people aren't at their best when they aren't feeling good...  

Those are the horror stories.  What does that have to do with gov't run health insurance?  Health care is already so humongous there is no individuality - the docs have to be part of some big conglomerate as they can't afford the cost of malpractice insurance or all the other expenses in having their own office - they are mandated by the DRG's that the gov't has set (diagnostic something something - can't remember right now).  The gov't already has health care in its grips - the ER's & HMO's are just a symptom of the often unreasonable regulations the gov't puts on health care.  Sure we want uniform, good health care, but docs can't use their own brains, education & experience anymore because they will get dinged if they happen to disagree with the guidelines that have been set up.  Hospitals are closing the ER's so things just get worse & worse.

I just talked to a relative up in Canada - she's been on a waiting list for quite awhile - she needs neck surgery from an old car accident.  So much for socialized medicine...

I am glad the safety nets are there - but that's exactly what they should be used for.  People now-a-days make it their career in life seeing how many freebies they can get so that they don't have to use the money they spend on satellite TV, cell phones, wireless for their computers & video games, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, clothes, etc. for necessities.

At one point, I was a single mom with 2 young sons.  I was enrolled back in college to get my nursing degree, was getting no child support & ended up on welfare for a couple yrs.  For some reason, I never qualified for food stamps, but I did get a little every month to help w/expenses, got free healthcare & took advantage of the school loans & grants available.  Once I graduated, I have worked as a nurse ever since.  I'd always worked before that time & worked while going to school as much as I could.  I am very thankful that the safety net was there for me & don't begrudge others for using it when they have a need for it.  

The trouble is, so many in today's society think everything is owed them & spend so much time scamming it, that they have lost sight of reality!  (that includes our politicians, the big guys running the Federal Reserve & on & on & on)

Ok, end of rant!

(guess I'll still post this, MtnDon posted again while I was ranting)

I'm very glad that everyone here can pay their own way, and pat themselves on the back for it.

This thread, however, turned ugly almost right out of the chute. One poster went so far as to suggest that health care should only be made available to those who can afford it, thereby letting the "process of selection" take care of the problem. They soon got their PC together and edited the offensive line out, but that sentiment seems to be indicative of the tone through much of this thread.

I love to congratulate myself on my successes in life as much as the next guy, but when poverty comes into the conversation I've always had the tendency to think "There, but by the grace of God, go I". Many if not most of our circumstances are dictated not by what fine, upstanding fellows we are, but by the luck of the draw. I've never felt myself somehow personally responsible, for example, for the color of my skin, the geography I was born in, and the economic and educational standing of my parents. I got lucky. I'm sure that everyone here has skated through plenty of "bad choices" by virtue of conditions completely out of anyone's control. Some people aren't so lucky.

Although I don't pretend to understand the health care plan beyond the simple basics, I can assure you that my ultimate decision on its merits will not revolve around whether or not poor people deserve health care, or whether or not I want to shoulder the costs of some freeloader's care, because I know that we're paying for it in any case, indirectly. What I want is what is best for this country as a whole, and my personal little gripes concerning "those people" won't come into play.

I apologize to anyone I offended, I did get a little rude.

Raindog,

I do not think anyone here is patting themself on their back. Not at all.

I find this ironic that somehow the people here have no sympathy for the poor. Considering this board  help's teach or reach out to those who want to work and learn. Is there some government program out there that offers people how to build their own home? how to live independent or with very little money as this board and its fellow posters? The majority of us here are willing to live without. We give tips on how to store food, how to get heat, how to build, how to garden.  Follow the tips here and a family of four can live probably for less then 30K a year very comfy. It is an issue  of Want's Vs Needs, and that is what the majoirty of problems seem to be, Want's Vs Need's.

 Hey, Stink, I love this forum. Don't get me wrong.

But you do have to admit that within this thread are numerous examples of a them-against-us mindset, which I find to be not only mean-spirited and short thinking, but to be not even germane to the issue.

I personally couldn't give a hoot whether Joe Blow the welfare queen deserves anything. I care about whether some universal healthcare plan would make for a more stable and secure society, as well as whether the plan is even economically viable, which I find questionable at best.

I can't help but sense fear in more than a couple of these posts. Fear of someone who doesn't have much that what little they have will be taken away. A knee-jerk and emotional response to a very complicated question. There's no answers in anecdotes about grasping and greedy poor people we've seen, and nothing to be gained from assuring each other of how lacking they are of all our fine qualities. That's only a distraction, and a cheap one at that.

The issue is whether the plan is good for our society and country as a whole, not whether it's more icing on the cake for some crackhead in the projects with his big screen TV and bad life choices. This is only a question of morality in the most shallow reading.

Raindog,

Thanks for the response, it feels warm and friendly  :) Love good dialogue.

I do find something interesting....This is only a question of morality in the most shallow reading.

Lets have a great conversation on this, if you don;t mind. I do believe it will lend itself beautifully to the discussion.

Where exaclty do we get morality? Who defines it?

I have tried to stay away from this thread. 

raindog, I agree that many people are left behind in the world today.  Me and my sister were raised by a single mom, and we were on the food stamp program when I was a child.  I remember government cheese, and the free watery milk.  My mother now is on disability after having a multitude of heart problems.  She gets a check from the government every month because she cannot work.  Please don't make this an emotional issue when it clearly is not.  No one wants to see people suffering and no one wants to be an advocate for that. 

But the facts behind the issue remain what they are.  The united states is broke.  fdic is bankrupt now, social security is bankrupt now, not some future date - right now.  By far the largest expense the government has today is health care.  Last month we had the treasury secretary in front of congress telling congress the most important issue in the united states is health care, not the credit crises, not the dollar, not the things one would expect the treasury secretary to speak about - this not about doing the right thing for people.  It is about saving money by limiting expenses in health care.  I don't care how they spin this that is the bottom line.  Anyone who thinks healthcare will improve by giving it to the government and making all doctors government employees is delusional. 

Seriously, Stink?

Well, to my thinking, morality is simply a time-proven set of codes designed to encourage behavior which ultimately benefits the family, extended family, tribe, or civilization.

A sound moral code will enable a group to survive and thrive, while an unsound one can lead to extinction.

Though I may think that I don't eat my neighbors because that would be "wrong" or a sin, ultimately it's because it would rob my group of any knowledge, skills, or manpower that neighbor may have to offer. 

The generally altruistic moral codes of the West, provided by the traditions of Judeo-Christianity, tweaked by the Age of Enlightenment and other sources, has propelled us to levels of comfort, security, and technological advances unimaginable to past civilizations.

The cannibals of Fiji, and their moral code, are no longer with us.

 
Muldoon, it appears that we are in agreement.

My point is that Morals have been handed out by God.  Yet our government has said that it can not have God in it. Ironic aint it. 



muldoon I really think you just covered it all.  What a way to steal someone thunder. Simple yet spot on!

I also agree that if you need health care, it should be available.  What health care is absolutely necessary?  Do I go to the ER because I have the sniffles?  Or do I call an ambulance because my finger hurts?  Do I come into the ER everyday  w/the same minor complaint & use up resources that others, who have legitimate problems, will not have access to or will have to wait that much longer.

If you could see some of the ambulance calls we receive, you would understand the abuse & waste of resources.  Those that have to pay out of their pockets will use any means to get themselves to the ER, even if they are having a heart attack, due to the cost.   Those who don't have to pay, due to income, don't even give it a 2nd thought... and the paramedics/EMT's can't question it.

That is why I, for one, give anecdotal stories, so that people see what is really happening. 

Where do we draw the line?

As for the people on CP - through the years, I've seen how most also do volunteer work other than giving advice here on CP, many give of their resources to help the needy.

Just because people don't want to put an outrageous, totally confusing, pork filled, unwieldy conglomerate of no one really knows what into law w/threats of fines & jail time for those who refuse to be a part of it, doesn't mean they are not compassionate, caring, generous, intelligent & try to be wise in the use of theirs & others resources. 

Perhaps my opinion is unclear, I do believe in health care for all. Paid for by all according to ability.
You all seem to want health care for all, and yet seem unwilling to vocalize a payment plan. How are you proposing we pay for those who do not pay?

That's the $64,000 question  ??? or should I say $trillion +  d*

They seem to be offering a plan that will cover and distribute the cost of the poor among the rest of us, is this the part you object to?

I object to a massive spending bill that the majority of the Senate haven't read in totality, with additional add-ons that no one but those who are writing up them up, have read.  The constituents haven't even had a chance to read it all - I've read parts but they keep adding on more stuff, plus a lot of the wording gets so convoluted, you don't know what you might be signing on to.

Once it becomes law & all the little quirks & perks & pork start rising their heads to the light, if I don't agree or want to be a part of it, I will still be extorted for the 2.5% of my income to pay for it with threats of fines/prison or both. 

Yes, I know we are paying for it already - that was why I asked the question "what type of care is necessary?"  If persons go to the ER for frivolous reasons, come in over & over for the same minor thing, call an ambulance for whatever minor reason (just because you don't have transportation & you've got it into your head that you want to see a doc for a sore finger, doesn't mean you call an ambulance for transportation!).  There should be some standards, there should be even small co-pays of $5-10.  If someone had to pay even a small amt who ordinarily doesn't pay anything, they would think twice before coming into an ER just because they sneezed for the 1st time that day (believe it or not, those are reasons people come in!). 

Or maybe community service in exchange for healthcare...  we sure could use more volunteers around the hospital to run specimens to the lab, answer the phone, wheel someone to xray, help clean & change the sheets on the guerneys, etc.  It all falls on the nurses to do which takes time away from taking care of of the pt.  We don't always have a health aide to help with those things, we don't have a secretary to answer the phone & do the calling that needs to be done to different depts to help coordinate pt care.  Sometimes the phone is ringing several x's a minute.  If there are only 2 nurses & you both are at the bedside of  patients or one has gone to xray with a pt leaving the other to watch up to 10-12 pts, answer the phone & triage new pts just coming in to make sure a seriously ill pt isn't missed & sits out in the waiting area getting sicker or as has happened in some cases, dying right there  :o

Yes, high paid management needs to get out in the thick of things.  Seems like we just get more & more layers of administration running around with clipboards looking important actually impeding the flow of care.  They need to see 1st hand what the situation is.  This is going on all across the US in every hospital!  Health care is at a breaking point! 

So why do we let people who are here illegally get all the benefits of legal aliens or citizens?  And for free?  Why do we let a person come across the border just to have a baby which immediately becomes a citizen & then qualifies for free health care (don't forget labor & delivery care isn't cheap - then you get a critically ill baby, it's even more expensive), welfare, food stamps, education...  I don't know - why do so many people think they are entitled to a free ride?

I don't begrudge the help to people who really need it - we have friends who have illnesses such as diabetes or seizures who have had to go on social security disability, my brother is on social security disability after 2 brain surgeries, open heart surgery & neck cancer.  He gets his care under his wife's health insurance.  He really qualifies for SS disability.  But they are still giving back to the community.  They go to yard sales & purchase bedding, appliances, clothes etc & give it to a Christian organization who distributes it to anyone who has a need, for free.  They take the stuff home, wash all the clothes & bedding, clean up or fix things that need it, so that it is in good condition.  They spend part of their week, every week, doing this, to give back to the community.

There's some serious flaws that need to be worked out before a 2000+ page bill get placed into law.  There needs to be some expectations of payment by those who are able to - whether volunteering, doing what my brother & SIL do, or whatever in exchange for health care, welfare, whatever. 

Our country is bankrupt!  Another huge layer of bureaucracy is not going to improve things...   You can't keep robbing the golden goose (taxpayers), one of these days, she's gonna die. 

Back to Stinkerbell & Raindog's comments about morality...  whose morality?  Is there an ultimate truth that gives us morals?  I know Stinkerbell & myself believe in the God of the Bible.  But most people today say that "it is all relative, there are no absolutes."

con't in next frame...

Those who can not pay are currently being distributed among us through high fees for service. Who do you think picks up the slack for the poor? Thats right, those who pay. Once again, those who cannot pay do not get turned away from an ER and many clinics have sliding scale fees and if you can not really pay there are county clinics and medicare. It's not the really poor in this country who do not have insurance. It is really the lower middle class or working class poor that do not want the expense of insurance and use their funds for other things they deem they need. A good majoirty gamble they do not need a doctor/medical care.  I am not saying there are not those few who fall through the cracks by a job change or a layoff, so the government has stepped in before and made the offer of COBRA for those. Guess what, they can't afford what the government said that has to be provided., hmm makes you ponder doesn't it?

We really need to stop thinking and using the emotional argument that its the absolute poor among us, because those individuals that are truly poor and in poverty have nets to catch them through medicare, county clinics and sliding scale fees. The issue is the lower middle class.

 Let me tell you a story...

There was an older couple visiting the Netherlands.  They were looking for a place to buy tickets to ride the train.  They came upon a couple of young women - late teens, early 20's & asked them if they knew where to buy tickets.  The young women said "oh, you don't have to buy tickets, we've been riding for a week without any & no one has ever asked us for a ticket!"

Let me dissect this little story...  

Multiply those 2 girls by 100's-1000's each month, millions each year - where is the money going to come from to run the trains?

Now we need ticket takers because the people have learned they can ride without tickets & no one will check.

The ticket taker lets his/her friends ride for free if he gets a little kickback.

Now we need a supervisor over the ticket taker, but he's not entirely honest either, after all, we all do what is right in our own eyes since there's no absolutes...  multiply the ticket takers & supervisors x's every train station...  now we need some offices & more bureaucracy to keep things running...  you can see where this story is leading.

Without a bottom line, without absolutes, there is chaos - that's where our country & most of the world are at.  It is taking more & more "administration" to get the work done & administration has found out it can be lucrative to take a little something on the side & on it goes.  Most of our politicians have honed their skills to a fine art.  They no longer work for the constituents, they have built themselves little fiefdoms & think they are little kings & queens!

When the people protest, hey, arrest or threat of martial law will put them in their places...

Anyway, as Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?"

I definitely feel that this is an US against THEM problem. 

My "US" consists of capitalists.  My "THEM" consists of socialists. 

No government based free healthcare.  You get what you can pay for.  Period.  If volunteer groups want to make funds available to clinics and ER, great! 

Quit demanding changes be made that will undermine the integrity of the care my family PAYS FOR.

Come after my gold .... be prepared to receive lead.   
 

 Oh boy...

Did I read that right? Are you promising to shoot "them" if they attempt to collect taxes?

Given the context of this thread... no, there's no other way to read that.

I understand that this is a highly polarized and emotion-packed issue, but let's not get out of control here.

Please indicate where I used the word "shoot".

I have very serious issues with taxation without representation.  I am clearly not being heard by my "representatives".  I am already overtaxed and under appreciated by my government.  I pay more in taxes than most people earn, I donate more than most people pay in taxes, and I am fed up with lazy socialists who sit on their butts and want to strongarm me into additional taxation to support the ruin of the country I love. 

Agreed.

Quote from: NM_Shooter on December 15, 2009, 11:55:39 PM

I have very serious issues with taxation without representation.  I am clearly not being heard by my "representatives".  I am already overtaxed and under appreciated by my government.  I pay more in taxes than most people earn, I donate more than most people pay in taxes, and I am fed up with lazy socialists who sit on their butts and want to strongarm me into additional taxation to support the ruin of the country I love. 

Amen!

Quote from: NM_Shooter on December 15, 2009, 11:55:39 PM
Please indicate where I used the word "shoot".

That's just about as disingenuous a statement as can be made. Being a gun owner myself, I have to say that that kind of talk is just about the worst advertising for 2nd Amendment rights imaginable. Any gun-control advocate worth his salt would point to such statements as proof positive that private ownership of firearms should be limited.

Apparently the subject is simply too emotionally charged for some to discuss calmly, rationally, and in a reasonably mature manner, so I won't attempt it further. A waste of my time, obviously.

I posted this in another link - a Lt Col of the US Army has this to say - gotta watch it all the way through...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M

Quote from: NM_Shooter on December 15, 2009, 11:55:39 PM
Please indicate where I used the word "shoot".

Well, in your name...duh!  d*

;)

I just couldn't help myself.

Quote from: NM_Shooter on December 15, 2009, 11:55:39 PM

I have very serious issues with taxation without representation.  I am clearly not being heard by my "representatives". 

So if your representatives don't vote your position on every issue, they are not representing you?  You need to take a refresher course on how representative democracy works.

Sometimes you're the windshield. Sometimes you're the bug.  That's the way it is supposed to work.

Quote from: muldoon on December 15, 2009, 12:08:33 PM
But the facts behind the issue remain what they are.  The united states is broke.  fdic is bankrupt now, social security is bankrupt now, not some future date - right now.  By far the largest expense the government has today is health care.  Last month we had the treasury secretary in front of congress telling congress the most important issue in the united states is health care, not the credit crises, not the dollar, not the things one would expect the treasury secretary to speak about - this not about doing the right thing for people.  It is about saving money by limiting expenses in health care.  I don't care how they spin this that is the bottom line.  Anyone who thinks healthcare will improve by giving it to the government and making all doctors government employees is delusional. 

to carry on what I said yesterday. 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/president-obama-federal-government-will-go-bankrupt-if-health-care-costs-are-not-reigned-in.html

Quote
ABC's Karen Travers reports from Washington:

President Obama told ABC News' Charles Gibson in an interview that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government "will go bankrupt."

The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.

Gibson Obama "If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee....your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you," he said. "Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. "

more at article. 

folks this is a tax and nothing else.  If they raise taxes right now the populace would revolt at the mention of it.  Combine this tax with reducing quality and affordability of care and you lower costs to the government and more money to their coffers.  That is all this is about. 

I agree with NM_Shooter above about taxation without representation.  Were not at the "give em lead" state at my house, but I understand the sentiment nonetheless. 

Pox - no, I do not expect my reps to vote my position.  I do expect them to vote their constituents that voted them in.  A congressional approval level of 18% - EIGHTTEEN percent should tell you everything you need to know about how represented Americans feel right now. 

Me? Second amendment?  Nah, I don't pay any attention since the locusts ate all my guns.

-f-

Quote from: muldoon on December 16, 2009, 04:53:28 PM

Pox - no, I do not expect my reps to vote my position.  I do expect them to vote their constituents that voted them in.  A congressional approval level of 18% - EIGHTTEEN percent should tell you everything you need to know about how represented Americans feel right now. 

What it tells us is that Americans don't like Congress as a whole.  But they are surprisingly satisfied with their own Congressman: 52% said they want their own representative re-elected in 2010 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29458.html).  When you see dismal stats like an 18% approval rating, it reflects frustration with the other guy's congressman.  Most Americans are quite satisfied with their own guy.

not me. 

I remember calling Hutchisons office during the TARP fiasco of late 2008, and sitting on hold.  I spoke with her staffer, who when I asked if they were busy said the calls were running 50/50.  I was surprised, until he said 50% no, 50% hell no.  Then she voted for it.  Now she's running for governor.   I think they are all traitors and criminals of the highest order.  We found out later that the official numbers were 300 to 1 against - and still they voted for it.  I have no love of  "my congress critters". 

That is the definition of taxation without representation.  Today Obama had the nerve to drop a "if we dont pass the healthcare bill the federal government will go bankrupt" line.  More fear and bull-must-sensor-myself.  Maybe you should not have given a trillion to the bankers like the people said. 

People, myself included are fed up with the criminals, the fraud, the lies, the treason that is occurring.  We definitely feel taxed but not represented and are abrasive about the subject.

This health care, the fees and taxes start immediately, but the benefits and actual coverage does not start until 2013.   This is nothing but  a tax.  And one that is not welcome strictly because the representation behind the tax is so lacking. 

- The move to make health benefits taxable is a punch in the stomach.  not just taxable but counting it as income..  Everyone who has health care of any kind is likely to be bumped up to another tax bracket because of it.  And for what?  So that in 4 years we get screwed again? 

I need to stop, I know from past experience that a night of bourbon and posting here just gets me in trouble.  I am not looking to debate or argue with the fine folks here at CP, I am just frustrated with where this country is going. 

good night. 

Wow 52% Pox that is a landslide.  Election is still a few days off.  ;)  They have a long time to make us all warm and fuzzy.

I agree with muldoon.  Sassy contacted as many congress critters and others as she could regardng the bailout.  Nearly all said they would vote against it.  The nearly all lied and went against their constituents wishes due to arm twisting, threat of martial law and some because they were protecting their own investments.

Nobody I know is satisfied with them.

The problem is the Representatives represent their party and not the people who voted them in.
IMO, the Republicans think this next election is going to be easy, and it might. But if they don't clean house and get their act together I really think a third party will divide the Republicans and wound the democrats.  At this point on a personaly level I have had it with both parties and desire a third party.

Me too Stink!  Ditto Mudoon!

I had a long drive back from a work visit last night and was trying to think about what it is that most bothers me about all this.

1)  First of all, I have good health insurance and my health care still sucks.  The major problem is not insurance.  This bill being promoted by the left is nothing more than a whitewash to be able to quantify something tangible that they "did".  Whether or not it is effective is of no concern to them, since they don't fall under the "care" of this bill.

2)  If some single payer / govt option does go through, you can bet your butt that all of our employers will drop insurance coverage on us like a hot potato given the first chance.  Those of us who are married get hit by the marriage penalty, and I'd bet the farm that my employer is not going to increase my wages to compensate me.  So I'm out benefits, and I have to pay extra for reduced service.

3)  Our government can't manage ANYTHING without screwing it up.  Look no further than the post office for direct proof of this.  My local branch that serves 8000 people has a front service desk that has room for three workers.... here we are 10 days before Christmas, and they are running only one person to deal with all the incoming mail.  WTH???  We need more private industry that is run for profit and less hourly government paid workers who don't care how much business they get.

4)  I'm tired of having my taxes go up, while my "benefits" go down.  We encourage poverty, rather than encourage education and smart lifestyle choices.  The left feeds off of this voter base.  The motto of the left seems to be to keep them uneducated, dependent, and breeding. 

BTW... I would be all for a smart, well designed program that provides education benefits for the poor.  Let them have welfare and child daycare / support, but put their butts in trade school or community college or whatever under a fixed duration assistance program.  Make grades or you are done.  Tax me for that and I'll support it.  I don't mind "giving a man a fish".... Once.

Quote from: NM_Shooter on December 17, 2009, 10:49:17 AM

2)  If some single payer / govt option does go through, you can bet your butt that all of our employers will drop insurance coverage on us like a hot potato given the first chance. 

This contradicts the reason employers offer any health benefits at all; to attract and retain the best employees.  They are not offering insurance out of the goodness of their hearts; it is in their economic interest to do so. 

If the public option is the nightmare its opponents are predicting (long waits, rationing, death panels), any employer who stops offering private insurance will soon find himself with cubicles full of everybody else's rejects.

Employers will not place themselves in a competitive disadvantage by dropping health insurance benefits. 

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on December 17, 2009, 01:33:10 PM

Quote from: NM_Shooter on December 17, 2009, 10:49:17 AM

2)  If some single payer / govt option does go through, you can bet your butt that all of our employers will drop insurance coverage on us like a hot potato given the first chance.

This contradicts the reason employers offer any health benefits at all; to attract and retain the best employees.  They are not offering insurance out of the goodness of their hearts; it is in their economic interest to do so.  

If the public option is the nightmare its opponents are predicting (long waits, rationing, death panels), any employer who stops offering private insurance will soon find himself with cubicles full of everybody else's rejects.

Employers will not place themselves in a competitive disadvantage by dropping health insurance benefits.  

You may be right----but, the large employer I retired from, and many others, does require you to sign up for Medicare including Part D (drug) at age 65. At that point, your retiree medical policy becomes "secondary" to Medicare. Unfortunately, here in Anchorage, only 11 out of over 700 primary care doctors (mine is not one of them)will accept Medicare and since I cannot submit my bills to Medicare, I also cannot submit them to my retiree health plan----isn't that special!  I must, however, pay my medicare premiums plus my retiree premiums just in case I ever find a doctor who will accept medicare reimbursements-----I am pretty sure many others will have similar experiences. Welcome to the future of ObamaCare. At this point, I must pay 100% of my doctors bills myself----all OCare will do for me is raise my premiums 

 Abandon ship.

Politico: House Dems already starting to run from ObamaCare

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31693.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31693.html)

And, " Many Democrats, as always, are caught in their insular liberal information loop. They think the polls are bad simply because the economy is bad. They tell each other health care is unpopular because the people aren't sophisticated enough to understand it. Some believe they can still pass health care even if their candidate, Martha Coakley, loses the Senate race in Massachusetts on Tuesday.

That, of course, would be political suicide. It would be the act of a party so arrogant, elitist and contemptuous of popular wisdom that it would not deserve to govern. Marie Antoinette would applaud, but voters would rage."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/opinion/19brooks.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/opinion/19brooks.html)

Here we've got one of America's chief apologists for the "educated class" warning Dems that they deserve to burn if they decide to ignore the will of the hoi polloi for their own good.

Quote from: RainDog on January 20, 2010, 06:42:12 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/opinion/19brooks.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/opinion/19brooks.html)

Here we've got one of America's chief apologists for the "educated class" warning Dems that they deserve to burn if they decide to ignore the will of the hoi polloi for their own good.

I got to this paragraph before I could not stand to read any more :

"In many ways, Barack Obama has lived up to his promise. He has created a thoughtful, pragmatic administration marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate."  After reading that I felt like I needed another shower.

What concerns me most is that I think that our political system is critically underdamped and unstable.  I fear that we are going to swing wildly between red and blue endpoints.  How do we get our elected officials to work in a bipartisan way with the best of our country in mind?  I believe that instead of adding new political parties perhaps we should figure out a way to eliminate all of them.

The illegal tyrannical presidential signing orders have really eliminated the need for any other parties.   Why do so many continue to pretend that the system still works as it was created by the founding fathers?  The bantering between the fake 2 parties is just a distraction.  Those in office are running their own agenda.

Well I read today that the POTUS is planning on moving the White House to Kansas to keep one of his campaign promises.

Another:

Analysis: Brown's win changes political narrative for 2010

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/analysis.massachusetts.election/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/analysis.massachusetts.election/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo)

I'm very curious to see whether the health care bill gets pushed through, contrary to public opinion, before Brown gets seated or not.

Quote from: RainDog on January 20, 2010, 02:24:07 PM

Another:

Analysis: Brown's win changes political narrative for 2010

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/analysis.massachusetts.election/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/analysis.massachusetts.election/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo)

I'm very curious to see whether the health care bill gets pushed through, contrary to public opinion, before Brown gets seated or not.

Brown is a progressive -- he might actually vote for Health Care so it won't likely matter.

He voted for Stimulus Ver 2.0 and from what I've heard him say he's NOT a small government, less spending, less taxes type -- folks mislead themselves to think otherwise.

Now, all is not lost, but expect to see him chumming with other progressives and voting their big government ideas.

 Yeah, I saw the way he voted on the Senate jobs bill couple days back. Interesting.

"As soon as the vote was called, he strode quickly into the well and interrupted the clerk as he read the roll.

"Yes," Brown said quietly, and then, having become Reid's first vote, he rushed out of the room before Republican colleagues   arrived. He stepped into the hallway, then waited for reporters to assemble around him.

"I'm not from around here," he said. "I'm from Massachusetts."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022204270.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022204270.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)

Democrats could bypass GOP on health care bill

"Washington (CNN) -- As a major White House meeting on health care reform approaches this week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged Tuesday that he may use a controversial parliamentary shortcut to bypass GOP opposition and pass a bill."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/23/dems.health.care/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20rss%2Fcnn_topstories%20%28RSS%3A%20Top%20Stories%29 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/23/dems.health.care/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20rss%2Fcnn_topstories%20%28RSS%3A%20Top%20Stories%29)

Quote"It's not a perfect bill, but it's certainly a bill that I felt comfortable enough to vote on, because it's the first step in creating jobs," Brown said. "And anytime you can make a small step, it's still a step."

Like I said -- he's not a 'small government' type -- I'd call him a Rhino.

Anyone who thinks government creates jobs isn't a Republican (or at least shouldn't be)...much less a 'Tea party Candidate' but I don't think he was either.

Sadly, people are going to get even more upset when they realize that they voted for the 'same old same old' in Brown....thank god it didn't take long to get that out though.

Now, let us pray we can find someone with a little sense in them who might realize that the way to create jobs in this country is to get off the backs of businesses and citizens by CUTTING spending dramatically.

Pipe Dream though.

Yes, it's from Slate, and yes, it is biased, and yes, it makes a number of unsupported assertions.

But this "Health Summit Cheat Sheet" this "glossary of health reform words, phrases, and slogans" adds up to a good analysis of the current state of play in the health care "reform" negotiations.

And some interesting data, as well...

Health Summit Cheat Sheet

http://www.slate.com/id/2245894/pagenum/all/#p2 (http://www.slate.com/id/2245894/pagenum/all/#p2)